______________________________
____________________________
Sources: campaign-finance disclosures filed with the FPPC and the City of Cerritos water rate study.
By Brian Hews
Publisher | Follow X
August 18, 2026
A few months ago, this newspaper wrote that the effort to recall Frank Aurelio Yokoyama and Lynda P. Johnson, ostensibly over the water-rate increase, was a mask for Cerritos Republicans to grab political power. We made that argument just three weeks after the recall effort began, long before campaign-finance reports revealed where the money was coming from, where it was going and how closely the organizations behind the water-rate fight and recalls were connected.
Now those filings are in, and the numbers are extraordinary.
Campaign report, showing donations and expenses for Concerned Citizens of Cerritos. Click on image to view entire campaign report and see donations.
Two Cerritos residents with the same last name, Wendy and Robert Shavelle, contributed $5,000 each — $10,000 combined. Another contributor put in $3,000, others contributed $1,000 each, and even a $600 contribution from one of the proponents, Carla Guilhuys.
The monies represents several years of the average annualized cost of the water-rate increase they were supposedly fighting.
Put the $10,000 contribution in perspective. According to the city’s own water-rate study, once the five-year rate increase is fully phased in, the average residential customer will pay approximately $1,020 more per year for water than under the current rates. The Shavelles contributed nearly ten times that amount to the political effort.
Then there is the spending.
Approximately $24,000 has already been paid to attorneys and political consultants, with another approximately $26,000 still owed — nearly $50,000 in expenses associated with a political campaign born from outrage over a water-rate increase that would cost the average household approximately $1,020 more over five years.
Campaign report, showing monies paid to political consultant Ravi Mehta, former FPPC Chairman, by Concerned Citizens of Cerritos.
___________________
Residents had every right to protest the increases, organize against them and pursue an initiative to repeal them. But somewhere along the way, this stopped being simply about water rates.
For months, residents have been presented with what appear to be several different political movements: opposition to the water and sewer increases, an initiative to repeal those increases, and recalls targeting Yokoyama and Johnson. The campaign-finance filings now show financial and organizational connections among those efforts.
Concerned Citizens of Cerritos transferred $2,000 to the water-rate repeal committee and another $2,000 to the committee supporting the recalls. Money was raised, attorneys retained, political consultants hired, legal notices purchased, and political committees established.
That brings us back to the question this newspaper raised three weeks after the recall began: If this was really about water rates, why was a recall necessary when proponents already had an initiative specifically designed to repeal those rates?
A recall accomplishes something entirely different. Removing Yokoyama and Johnson does not repeal the water rates. It does not repair aging infrastructure or make the costs identified by the city disappear.
It changes who sits on the Cerritos City Council.
There is also the question of why Yokoyama and Johnson were selected. They were not the only councilmembers involved in dealing with the city’s water system and rate increases, yet they are the two officials proponents want removed.
Removing two members from a five-member City Council can significantly alter its political balance. Seen through that lens, pursuing two recalls alongside a separate water-rate repeal initiative no longer looks like two ways of accomplishing the same objective. They accomplish two very different things: one can change the water rates; the other can change the composition of the City Council.
The signature numbers make the undertaking even more revealing. Opponents submitted approximately 6,400 Proposition 218 protests against the rate increases, of which roughly 4,800 were deemed valid. To qualify the recalls, proponents need 7,279 valid signatures for Yokoyama and another 7,279 for Johnson.
Experienced petition campaigns rarely aim for the bare minimum because some signatures inevitably are rejected during verification. Adding even a modest 10 percent cushion yields a practical target of approximately 8,007 signatures per recall — more than 16,000 signatures combined.
Compare that with the roughly 4,800 valid Proposition 218 protests.
Residents have every right to oppose the water rates, circulate an initiative to repeal them and attempt to recall elected officials. But voters also have every right to understand exactly what they are signing and exactly who is financing the effort.
A petition to repeal the water rates is about water policy. A petition to recall two councilmembers would remove two elected officials and potentially alter the political balance at City Hall. Those are not the same political decision.
Campaign-finance filings cannot tell us what is in someone’s mind, and proponents are entitled to explain why they believe Yokoyama and Johnson should be removed. But the filings can tell us who contributed money, how much they contributed, where committees transferred money and how much was spent or remains owed.
Those facts provide considerably more information than residents had when this campaign began.
Three weeks into the recall, we said the water-rate issue appeared to be masking a effort to gain political power at City Hall. Months later, voters can look at the campaign-finance reports and decide for themselves whether that warning was justified.
Water rates and political control are apples and oranges. Mixing the two together creates a toxic political cocktail.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
