The Santa Clara Valley Water District has come under fire following the release of an investigation concluding that its CEO, Rick Callender, engaged in severe sexual harassment against employees. The investigation, detailed in a report published on February 25, 2023, revealed that Callender’s conduct violated the district’s policies on harassment. Despite these findings, the district’s board voted 6-1 to retain Callender as an adviser for an additional year, paying him $520,000 in salary while also incurring substantial legal costs.
The board’s decision has sparked significant controversy. In addition to Callender’s salary, the district has spent $577,926 on legal fees and $275,000 on crisis communication costs. Board Chairman Tony Estremera defended the settlement, stating it is intended to save the district and its ratepayers money in the long run. He warned that continuing litigation could lead to even greater financial repercussions.
Public response has been mixed. Some community members express concerns regarding the ethics of the board’s decision. Judy Barbeau, a ratepayer from San Jose, emphasized the importance of addressing workplace harassment rather than prioritizing financial considerations. “As a ratepayer, I am more concerned with the ethics of the agreement and the lack of concern regarding harassment of women in the workforce,” she stated.
Conversely, others believe that the board’s choice may be a practical one. Stan Bogosian from Saratoga argued that the harassment case is not straightforward and that ongoing litigation could cost the district millions. He suggested that funds would be better allocated towards improving infrastructure and services.
The controversy surrounding Callender’s harassment case raises broader questions about workplace conduct and accountability within public organizations. As the Santa Clara Valley Water District navigates this difficult situation, many community members are left wondering whether the board’s actions truly reflect the values of the district and the interests of its ratepayers.
In light of these developments, the district’s handling of the situation will likely be scrutinized further. With an increase in awareness about workplace harassment, the board’s decision may set a precedent for how similar cases are managed in the future. The implications of this settlement reach beyond just financial concerns, touching upon ethical responsibilities and the treatment of employees within public service roles.
