Two Offices, Divided Loyalties? Bonta Allows Challenge to Gloria Gray’s Water Board Seat

CONFLICTING ROLES - California Attorney General Rob Bonta has authorized a lawsuit challenging Gloria D. Gray’s right to remain on the West Basin Municipal Water District Board of Directors while also serving on the Inglewood City Council.

The October 7 opinion grants Daniel Bookman and Conner Everts permission to seek Gray’s removal from the water board through a legal proceeding known as quo warranto—a challenge to someone’s authority to hold public office.

The decision does not remove Gray from office or constitute a final court ruling that she violated the law. It allows the applicants to take their case to court, where the central question can be resolved: Did Gray forfeit her West Basin seat when she became an Inglewood councilmember in 2023?

Why the Two Roles May Conflict

According to the opinion, Gray has served on the West Basin board since 2006 and began her most recent four-year term in 2022. She subsequently won an Inglewood runoff election and joined the City Council in 2023.

West Basin supplies water to nearly one million people across 17 cities and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. Inglewood is within its service area. The applicants assert that West Basin supplies more than 75 percent of Inglewood’s potable water.

That relationship is central to the challenge. West Basin has the authority to supply water and set its rates. Inglewood has the authority to obtain water for the city and its residents. An official serving both agencies could therefore face competing obligations over the price and supply of an essential public resource.

A water district director must consider the district’s financial and operational needs. A city councilmember must represent the city’s interests, including the costs borne by its residents. Those interests may overlap, but they can also pull in different directions.

The opinion identifies other potential conflicts involving water conservation, contracts, eminent domain and decisions affecting water supplies.

The Law Addresses Potential Conflicts

The challenge rests on California Government Code section 1099, which prohibits a public official from simultaneously holding incompatible public offices unless the dual service is compelled or expressly authorized by law.

As the Attorney General explains, the test does not require proof that an official has already made a compromised decision. A sufficiently significant potential clash between the duties or loyalties of the offices can establish incompatibility.

Nor, the opinion explains, can an official cure incompatible officeholding simply by declining to perform one of the conflicting roles.

When two offices are incompatible, state law provides that accepting the second results in forfeiture of the first. That is why the proposed lawsuit targets Gray’s West Basin seat rather than her City Council position.

Bonta’s office points to a 2002 Attorney General opinion finding city council membership incompatible with service on a municipal water district board. It also cites a 2020 appellate decision, People ex rel. Lacey v. Robles, involving simultaneous service as a mayor and a water replenishment district director.

Together, those authorities provide substantial support for allowing a court to examine Gray’s situation, the opinion concludes.

Gray’s Objections

Gray opposed the application. The opinion addresses her challenge to service of the application papers and concludes that service appeared proper. It also notes that she received the papers by email from the Attorney General’s office and had an opportunity to respond.

Gray cited a law permitting certain dual service involving the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Bonta’s office found that she had not explained how that provision authorized simultaneous service on the West Basin board and Inglewood City Council. Her Metropolitan board position is not the subject of this challenge.

Gray also argued that only a few months remained in her term. The Attorney General concluded that the limited time remaining did not outweigh the public interest in resolving the issue. A court could potentially grant interim relief, and the opinion explains that a case of continuing public importance might proceed beyond the end of a challenged term.

What Happens Next

The opinion determines that the proposed lawsuit uses the proper legal procedure, raises a substantial issue for judicial resolution and would serve the public interest.

Bookman and Everts now have permission to bring the action. Whether Gray forfeited her West Basin office remains a question for the court.

For residents, the case raises a practical question about representation: Can one official fully advocate for both a water supplier and a city affected by that supplier’s decisions? The Attorney General has concluded that the question warrants judicial review.

(This article was prepared by the CityWatch staff.)