CONFLICT: Central Basin Directors Juan Garza, Nem Ochoa, Joanna Moreno, and Gary Mendez voted to hire a firm that settled in 2019 with Central Basin for it role in a secret 2.75 million slush find to pay political operatives.
June 13, 2025
By Brian Hews, [email protected]
In November 2024, Dr. Alex Rojas, then-General Manager of the Central Basin Municipal Water District, was fired by a faction led by board members Juan Garza, Nem Ochoa, Joanna Moreno, and Martha Rodriguez—a move that many observers and legal experts, have called blatantly illegal. A 2015 California State Audit required six board votes to terminate a general manager, and Rojas’s own contract mandated a 7/8 vote, which also amounted to six votes based on the board’s configuration at the time. Neither threshold was met. There were also other violations.
Rojas has since filed a lawsuit to regain his job, arguing that the board violated public agency rules, government code, and state laws in removing him from his post.
Now, in a twist, the same board members who fired him are asking a judge for permission to countersue Rojas in the same case.
LCCN has obtained court documents filed May 14, 2025, showing Central Basin Board members Nem Ochoa, Joanna Moreno, and Juan Garza (OMG) asked a judge for permission to file a cross-complaint against Rojas.
And in a stunning move, the OMG trio, joined by Directors Gary Mendez and Jim Crawford, voted to hire the law firm Buchalter. In 2019, Buchalter settled a 2013 whistleblower corruption lawsuit involving a secret $2.75 million slush fund operated out of Central Basin. The fund was established during illegal closed-session meetings in 2010 and 2012, according to the lawsuit, and confirmed in sworn testimony by former disgraced General Manager Art Aguilar.
“We didn’t want anybody to know what we were doing, which is very difficult for a public agency,” Aguilar admitted in his deposition—testimony that underscored the board’s blatant violation of the Brown Act and financial transparency laws.
Buchalter and its insurance carrier agreed to pay $750,000 as part of a $2.25 million settlement. The settlement raises serious questions about the firm’s impartiality and the board’s judgment in hiring them.
Sources told LCCN that VP Gary Mendez and Central Basin General Counsel Victor Ponto aggressively pushed for the firm. Director Art Chacon cast the lone no vote; Director Leticia Vasquez was absent.
Now, the same law firm that once helped manage a secret, off-the-books slush fund is back—this time trying to go after Rojas. In essence, a firm that paid Central Basin to settle a corruption lawsuit is now representing the agency to intimidate a former general manager who’s alleging additional misconduct and retaliation.
Director Leticia Vasquez told LCCN, “The Central Basin Board, Interim GM Elaine Jeng, and Central Basin lawyers were all informed that Buchalter was a party in the 2019 settlement. They also were all provided with a copy of the lawsuit. Nevertheless, the board majority voted to hire them.”
But the backdrop of the OMG countersuit raises serious legal and ethical concerns.
Rojas was fired during a closed session without proper public reporting—a violation of the Brown Act, Government Code § 54950 et seq., which requires that actions taken in closed session by public agencies must be disclosed, otherwise known as “reporting out.”
Under the Code, public agencies are required to report final actions, including contract approvals or employment terminations, along with the votes or abstentions of each member. In Rojas’ case, no such disclosure occurred.
The firing also violated an employment agreement Rojas had negotiated, as well as a clause that gave Rojas six months to respond to allegations of corruption before he could be terminated.
Additionally, under Gov. Code § 54956.9, closed-session discussions about pending litigation are permitted, but any action taken—such as retaining outside legal counsel—must be reported once the contract is finalized and secrecy is no longer necessary.
In Central Basin’s case, the District not only failed to report Rojas’ firing but also illegally voted to alter the legal narrative by hiring Buchalter and then filing the countersuit. The countersuit was filed by the OMG trio—Ochoa, Moreno, and Garza —the same trio that had voted to hire Buchalter.
A second problem with the countersuit is Central Basin’s firing of Rojas was tainted from the start.
Legal experts note that any cross-claims based on that firing are compromised by the fact that the termination itself was illegal.
“It’s like illegally evicting someone and then suing them for breaking the lease,” one municipal law observer told LCCN.
A third problem with the countersuit is that it involves serious violations of the California Government Code and conflict-of-interest laws related to the OMG trio and the countersuit.
Under California Government Code §87100, no public official shall make, participate in making, or use their position to influence a governmental decision in which they know or have reason to know they have a financial interest.
Furthermore, Government Code §1090 prohibits public officials from having a financial interest in contracts made by them in their official capacity. However, litigation is not technically a contract; initiating legal action that personally benefits the voting board members—especially when they are named parties, such as the OMG trio—triggers conflict-of-interest red flags.
In this case, OMG, all named as respondents in the lawsuit, should have recused themselves from any vote authorizing litigation where they are directly involved. The decision to sue Rojas should have been made solely by the remaining four uninvolved board members: Gary Mendez, Jim Crawford, Art Chacon, and Leticia Vasquez.
Noting the vote of Director Chacon as a “No” when they initially hired Buchalter and Director Vasquez’s disdain for the firm, the countersuit authorization would not have passed.
Yet OMG voted to initiate and authorize the countersuit in which they are named, which is invalid under both §87100 and §1090 and potentially voidable in court.
“They should have recused themselves,” said a local attorney familiar with public ethics law. “When you’re the one being sued, you can’t use your public office to vote yourself into a defense strategy. It’s basic conflict-of-interest law.”
The court will decide in July whether to allow the countersuit—essentially asking whether the District can legally go on the offensive despite violating the rules in the first place.
Auto Amazon Links: No products found. WEB_PAGE_DUMPER: The server does not wake up: https://web-page-dumper.herokuapp.com/ URL: https://www.amazon.com/gp/top-rated/ Cache: AAL_048d91e746d8e46e76b94d301f80f1d9
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.