Residents urge action as harbor governance dispute prompts Quo Warranto filing

Several residents used the board’s public comment period to press Del Norte County elected officials to pursue legal remedies after months of disputes at the Crescent City Harbor District. At the meeting a commenter identified as the author of a Quo Warranto filing told the board they had submitted a request to the California Attorney General alleging that several harbor commissioners were unlawfully seated because they failed to obtain a required faithful-performance bond, and that later paperwork cannot retroactively cure statutory qualification defects.

The claim, presented to the board during general public comment, said the Harbors and Navigation Code requirement for a faithful-performance bond (referenced in the meeting as Harbors and Navigation Code 6056) was never met and that the district’s subsequent insurance policy and resolution do not satisfy the statute’s condition precedent to taking office. The commenter argued the only statutory remedy for an unlawfully seated elected official is a Quo Warranto action brought by the Attorney General or by county counsel seeking authorization to proceed.

Supporters of the harbor’s administration offered a counter-narrative during the same public-comment period. Sandy Moreno, who identified herself as the harbor district’s contract fiscal officer, urged the board to consider documentation she said shows payments and administrative work dating back to 2009 and 2012, and said outside allegations reflect misunderstandings rather than proven misconduct. She told the board she had consulted multiple attorneys who told her the district’s practices are permissible and said she is working with the harbor’s lawyer and county counsel to reach a common understanding.

Board members did not take immediate formal action on the complaint at the meeting. Chair Borges acknowledged receipt of the public comments and said the board was taking the matter seriously. No county-initiated Quo Warranto filing or directive to county counsel was recorded in the meeting minutes or votes on the day’s agenda.

Why this matters: a Quo Warranto proceeding would determine who has legal authority to act on behalf of the harbor district, with practical consequences for contract approvals, debt authorization, and day-to-day harbor operations. The matter remains unresolved at the end of the meeting; the county’s next steps are a procedural question for counsel and, potentially, the Attorney General.

What’s next: Speakers urged prompt action and documentation review; the board did not vote on a referral to county counsel during the session. The public commenter said time is running out for the harbor to stabilize operations, while harbor staff said they are assembling records that they say will address concerns.