On Saturday I attended the funeral service, with military honors, for Sgt. Richard Essex of the United States Army. He was killed in action in Afghanistan on August 16, 2012. Richard was a Kelseyville local, graduating from local schools and enjoying many days with his family and friends here in Lake County.

I didn’t know him, and can’t recall ever meeting him, but perhaps I did. But together with his family and close friends, I and about 1,000 other people attended his funeral. You may ask why so many people, who probably never met him, were there. I have a question in response: Why weren’t there even more?

During World War II, our nation came together because we had initially not wanted to be involved in the “European” conflict, and tried, at least publicly, to maintain a distance from the fighting. That changed with Pearl Harbor, when we were directly attacked.

That event, coming some 12 years after the Wall Street crash that ushered in the Great Depression, may have pulled us out of even greater economic disaster. Husbands, fathers, brothers and sons signed up in droves to go and fight, in Europe, the Pacific, even North Africa and Asia.

Here at home, we honored them and helped the effort by rationing gasoline, rubber, nylon and more to help the “war effort.” We had meatless Mondays, and other special days when our going without for a day meant our fighting men (and women) would have a bit more.

If we couldn’t get gas on the day we wanted it, we waited until our ration letter came up and bought just enough to get us through until we could buy again. We went without, so they would have fuel for trucks, tanks, planes and supplies to fight the war and come home safe.

We repeated those actions during the Korean conflict (not a war, as it was never declared; it was a United Nations intervention). But still men and women were in harm’s way overseas, and they deserved our support and sacrifice.

But starting with the Vietnam conflict, and continuing through Operation Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom and countless other combined operations and battles in the Middle East and elsewhere, we now fight our wars by proxy.

Just as we complain about American jobs going to other countries, we have outsourced our wars.

Young men and women from our communities still fight and die, but we are detached, unless it is one we personally know. Otherwise, we have made no sacrifice to support him or her, and every night the overwhelming majority of Americans go to bed without a thought about any soldier, representing our country, in battle somewhere on foreign soil.

We are, as a nation, generally complacent. We complain about the high cost of gasoline when we pull our fuel-guzzling SUVs into the service station.

We worry about the cost of education for our sons and daughters, but still send them to the best schools we can afford, and possibly the best colleges on earth.

We want the taxes and fees we must pay reduced, but always want the cop there when we need him or her, the Post Office to be open when it’s convenient for us, and the DMV to make the lines shorter.

We want cheaper prescriptions, and less expensive medical care, but run to the emergency room when have a cough or upset stomach in the middle of the night.

We want to be rugged individuals who don’t need the government telling us what to do, while depending on zoning laws to keep our neighbors from building their fences too high, or relying on the public utility commission to make the power company provide light in the dark.

I didn’t know Richard Essex. Had I met him, I may have liked him, or not. But he, and countless others are fighting, and sometimes dying because our country said they should. We, collectively, made that decision.

You may say, “I didn’t send him off to war, and I didn’t want him to get hurt.” Did you tell your senator or congressional representative that? Of course not. You didn’t even pick up the phone or send an e-mail. You let someone else make that decision for you. You outsourced that decision.

And just like that decision, you’ll let someone else make the other decisions that directly affect your life, and complain that it wasn’t your fault later.

This of course doesn’t apply to everyone. There are many in our community who are involved with their families and friends and those in the military and those in politic and those who represent us both locally and nationally. Those folks are interested, informed and aware of issues and decisions and consequences. Thank you if you are one of them.

If you are not, why not? Is life just too busy to read a paper, watch an unbiased news report or attend a town-hall meeting about an issue that affects you?

That’s OK, we’ll go for you. Afterwards, we’ll make the decisions for you too. You stay at home and watch “America’s Got Talent” while the real talent is out there fighting our wars, protecting our peace and serving our nation.

They may sacrifice everything they ever had to serve our country, and you can sacrifice being an active and informed citizen. After they render their service, you can say it wasn’t your idea they should do so.

So why weren’t there 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 people at Sgt. Essex funeral Saturday? Some were too busy enjoying the freedom and choices that his sacrifice, and the thousands of others who have fallen before him, provided.

Someone said we owe a debt to Sgt. Essex, and his comrades in arms, that can never be repaid. Many know that; many do not.

Be one that knows, and whether you were there Saturday or not, when you go to bed tonight, take a moment to say “Thank you.” It may be the only sacrifice you’re ever called upon to make.

Doug Rhoades lives in Kelseyville, Calif.

For the fifth straight year, the federal deficit is expected to exceed $1 trillion. Our national debt recently surpassed $15 trillion. If our debt was divided among the U.S. labor force, every single American worker would owe more than $100,000.

This is unsustainable, a national crisis, and we can’t wait to fix it.

First, our debt is a hidden tax on future generations. Instead of investing in job creation, renewable energy, infrastructure, Social Security and Medicare, our children and grandchildren will be paying back the money with interest that we’re borrowing. The interest alone on our debt currently sits at more than $200 billion a year.

Second, as former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen said, our national debt is the single biggest national security threat facing our country. Much of our debt is held by foreign countries which do not share our values and are not our allies.

Last year, a so-called deficit “super-committee” was tasked with coming up with a solution to this crisis. If it failed, $1 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts would begin on Jan. 1, 2013.

The cuts would be divided evenly among defense and nondefense spending. These cuts were designed to be so painful that they would force the committee to find a solution.

They didn’t. Ultimately, politics prevented compromise, the super-committee failed to reach an agreement, tax cuts and other programs were left to expire, and our nation was left staring over the edge of a fiscal cliff.

Now the clock is ticking and something must be done. To fix the problem, we need a long-term, balanced plan where nothing is left off the table.

To start, we have to take a hard look at all government programs and make sure taxpayers are getting the most bang for their buck.

We have to get rid of programs that aren’t needed, and if a program is needed we must make sure it’s running as efficiently as possible.

For instance, with information now available online, we were able to cut the Government Printing Office's congressional printing and binding service by millions of dollars. Many more cuts like this can be found.

Defense cuts also must be on the table. A strong national defense doesn’t have to be an expensive national defense, and there are responsible cuts to be made.

Last year, the Commission on Wartime Contracting identified more than $30 billion in waste and fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s $30 billion that should never have been spent.

We can find more areas to scale back, and we can do it without making any cuts that put a single American life at risk.

Next, our tax structure must be reformed so that everyone pays their fair share.

Over the last 10 years, we have spent billions of dollars on tax cuts that weren’t paid for. These cuts played a large part in turning a trillion-dollar surplus into a trillion-dollar deficit, and that is why I voted against them.

We can’t just cut our way out of this crisis. If our tax structure remains the same, our fiscal problems will only get worse.

Finally, any plan must also make job creation investments. More jobs will mean more revenue and these revenues will help get our nation out of the red.

Developing and enacting a long-term plan that puts our nation on a fiscally-sustainable path will not be painless. There will be cuts to programs we all care about, there will be defense cuts, and some taxes will be raised.

It will not be quick. We didn’t get in this hole overnight, and we won’t get out overnight. And it will not be easy. But leadership isn’t about doing what’s easy; it’s about doing what needs to be done to fix the problem.
    
I’m ready to do what it takes to fix the problem, but this can’t just be a Democratic effort or a Republican effort. It will take people on both sides of the aisle.

Some might say that Washington is too divided to accomplish anything of this magnitude. But remember, our nation weathered a civil war, rescued Europe from fascism, created the strongest economy in human history, passed the Civil Rights Act and put a man on the moon.  

We’ve been divided before, but we came together to do what is best for our country. We’ve faced long odds in the past, but we bet on America, and we achieved things no one thought possible.

I know we can do it again. We can solve this problem and shore up the resources we need to grow our economy, strengthen our national security, and protect Social Security and Medicare. It’s what our district and nation deserves.  

Congressman Mike Thompson represents Lake County, Calif., in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The recent revelation that the California State Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) has a “secret” fund of $54 million has plunged the department into chaos and disgusted and angered state park supporters all over the state.

For good reason. The budget deficit that precipitated the proposed closure of 70 state parks, including Lake County’s Anderson Marsh State Historic Park, is $22 million.

So, where does this leave Anderson Marsh State Historic Park?

The Anderson Marsh Interpretive Assoc. (AMIA) is the nonprofit cooperating association with the park that has been working for over a year to make sure that the park does not close.

The original closure date was July 1, but that date has been delayed because AMIA is among the many nonprofits that are in the midst of negotiating an operating agreement with DPR.

AMIA has been fundraising diligently and has been able through local contributions from individuals and other nonprofits, grants from the State Park Foundation and volunteer commitments to establish funding necessary to take over some operations of the park, including opening and closing gates on the weekend, paying for utilities, sanitary facilities, insurance and trail maintenance.

The revelation of the $54 million in hidden monies will not change our efforts.

Even before the budget crisis hit, Anderson Marsh State Historic Park suffered from neglect. Our plan is to continue to negotiate our operating agreement contract which will hopefully be in place within the next few months.

Donors to our effort need to know that all of the funds donated go to AMIA and, in turn, to the park.

Also, unlike the state, apparently, we are not only happy, but are required, to show our “books” to anyone who requests it.

There is no guarantee that the $54 million will go back to state parks and, if it does, there is no guarantee that Anderson Marsh State Historic Park will see any of that money.

If, on the other hand, the state miraculously places that money in the state parks budget, and parks are taken off of the closure list, including our park, we will celebrate.

The money collected so far could go a long way in taking care of some much-needed deferred maintenance problems at the park as well as fund needed improvements.

Having been so critical of DPR on the state level, we need to emphasize that local state park rangers and our sector superintendent, Bill Salata, are very supportive of Anderson Marsh State Historic Park.

Superintendent Salata has a vision for the park and began implementing that vision when he took over the job, only to be halted by the budget crisis and threat of closure.

The important issue remains keeping the park open.

Our supporters and donors need to separate the park from the State Department of Parks.

Anderson Marsh State Historic Park is important for many reasons. It supports valuable wildlife habitat. It provides walking and hiking opportunities for hundreds of people who use the park; many local folks walk there every day.

The park has been the site of the Old Time Bluegrass Festival, which has become an important event for the South County; it is an educational facility for local schools.

The park is all of these things and could be much more but it needs the continued support of local people.

We hope that our supporters don’t give up on our local park because the state park officials at the highest level have failed so miserably.

Roberta Lyons is president of the Anderson Marsh Interpretive Association, based in Lower Lake, Calif.

Recently biotech and chemical industry proponents have redoubled their efforts to bad-mouth organic farmers and consumers.

We are getting a concentrated dose of the standard “organic can’t possibly feed the world” line, along with scolding about organic farms encroaching upon the rain forests.

We are supposed to feel guilty for feeding our children peaches and strawberries free of hormone-disrupting pesticide residues.

The timing is too obvious – a successful campaign to labeling of genetically engineered food on the ballot brought about increased awareness.

I’m looking forward to seeing the Organic Trade Association’s figures for both 2011 and 2012 – I believe that shoppers are already voting with their wallets, resulting in a noticeable loss of market share for non-organic processed foods laden with unlabeled GMOs.

The industrial disinformation campaign will intensify, given the expected $100 million that biotech firms like Monsanto and Cargill are devoting to stopping Proposition 37, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.

It’s time to start setting the record straight.

Forty case studies of programs in 20 countries, sponsored by the UK Government Office of Science Foresight, were published in the International Journal of Agriculture Sustainability (IJAS) (Pretty et al. “Sustainable intensification in African agriculture” 2011).

These are not tiny test plot studies – they involve programs that benefit 10.39 million farmers and their families.

The results are impressive: Yields more than doubled over a three to 10 year period. Practicing “sustainable intensification” provided farmers with alternatives to the crushing debts incurred to purchase patented seeds and the soil-killing and water-polluting chemicals needed to grow them.

Additional studies recently published by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), compiling the work of over 400 independent scientists, also raised disturbing questions on genetic engineering. Jack A. Heinemann, a professor of genetics and molecular biology at University of Canterbury, New Zealand has written a book, Hope Not Hype, about the findings.

Several chapters are available free at https://sites.google.com/site/therightbiotechnology/Home .

Scientists found no evidence of sustained yield increases from GM crops since their commercial release.

For instance, food production in Brazil decreased slightly while the proportion of GM crops has grown to 65 percent.

Studies at Kansas State University and the University of Nebraska suggest that Roundup Ready soy yields 6 percent to 11 percent less than conventional varieties. The research showed the GE varieties were more, not less vulnerable to drought, an increasing problem throughout the world.

Although the biotech industry boasts of drought and salt tolerance, it’s now being found that conventionally-bred hybrids are more likely to excel in these traits. This includes both selection by farmers and use of marker-assisted selection by plant breeders.

This newer and safer technology is not the same as transferring genes from one species to another – it allows very precise selection of naturally-occurring beneficial mutations.

Genetically engineered crops don’t increase profits or decrease expenses for farmers. The higher upfront costs for GM seeds and the fertilizer and pesticides required actually increase the financial risk from crop failure.

Bankruptcies are still commonplace in the US and in several countries, such as India, suicides by debt-ridden farmers have risen rapidly, a horrifying trend.

Furthermore, according to the Institute for Food and Development Policy, there is already a surplus of food, enough to provide 3,500 calories for each person on the planet.

Even countries with the largest numbers of malnourished people have adequate food – it’s just that many people are too poor to buy it.

Since genetically modified food is not needed to feed the world, it’s important to consider the many reasons we should question the use of this obsolete and ineffective technology.

Industry claims that pesticide use has been reduced are false. Around 85 percent of GM crops are herbicide-tolerant. According to IAASTD, glyphosate use in the United States has increased by 15 times since 1994.

It’s also standard practice for GE seeds to be treated with systemic pesticides. This actually results in an increase in pesticide residue on food.

Monsanto has requested increases in allowable residue, including a request to the EU early this year to increase the allowable glyphosate residue on lentils by 100 times – that is not 100 percent, it’s a 10,000 percent increase!

Predictably the heavy use of herbicides is resulting in herbicide-resistant weeds, which will reduce the production and profits of farmers who do not even grow genetically engineered crops.

In his book, Heinemann points out that a farmer whose crop is contaminated by GMOs is exposed to legal actions, market rejection, and product recalls.

If conventionally-grown or organic crops become contaminated, according to patent law, Monsanto owns those crops and seeds, and can sue the farmers for “patent infringement.”

Their full-time staff of 75 employees has filed lawsuits against hundreds of American farmers, including those who never suspected that their fields had been contaminated.

Farmers typically settle out of court. The average payment to Monsanto is more than $400,000. Those farmers also no longer have the right to either save or plant their own seed or to select for desirable traits.

According to law, the entire genetically engineered plant, including the seeds, are the property of the patent-holder, not the farmer, even if the trait the farmer is selecting for is completely different from, and on a different chromosome from the GE mutation, and even if the gene got into the seed, not through any action of the farmer, but through wind or insect pollination. This violates both fair treatment under the law and common sense.

Domination of the world’s farmers by companies who own patented seeds is damaging to both biodiversity and food security.

The IAASTD provides important new evidence that even without the millions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies and research funding lavished upon biotech, agroecological methods of farming are outpacing industrial practices in feeding the hungry in the places that most desperately need both nutritional variety and the local economic benefits of small family-owned farms.

Roberta Actor-Thomas is a software consultant in Lakeport, Calif., and a member of the Committee for a GE Free Lake County.

A scorpion asks a frog to carry him across a river. The frog, who fears being stung during the trip, is convinced by the scorpion to make the journey because their fates in the river are aligned. The frog agrees carries the scorpion, but while in the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both to drown. When the frog asks why, the scorpion says that this action is in his nature. (Paraphrased from Aesop’s Fables.)

You may be aware that the California Water Service Co. (Cal Water), which provides water service to the community of Lucerne, recently filed for a general rate case in which they are asking for another 77 percent increase over three years for the water system in Lucerne.

This proposed increase comes at an already difficult time, and is placed upon one of Lake County’s already struggling communities.

Since Jan. 1, 2009, at least 92 homes have been lost to foreclosure in Lucerne. This amounts to one displaced family every two weeks.

This issue can be confusing. It is important to point out that the Board of Supervisors has virtually no say in the level of rates in the town of Lucerne.

While the county does not manage the Lucerne water system, the county does pay water bills there and we do share – as all citizens do – in the burden of the economic difficulties in communities that are served by out-of-area water companies.

On Tuesday, Aug. 14, at 11a.m., I am asking the Board of Supervisors to authorize sending a letter to the Public Utility Commission in opposition to Cal Water’s rate increase in Lucerne.

I urge all citizens who are concerned about the fate of our brothers and sisters in Lucerne, to take the next step – share their views with our state legislators and the public utilities commission.

I also need to point out that the entire ratemaking structure is unjust and incentivizes this corporate misbehavior and societal injustice.

While many have portrayed Cal Water as greedy and opportunistic, it is like the above story of the scorpion and the frog. The company is doing what is in its nature – Cal Water is simply playing by the ratemaking rules, and they get paid when they play the game well.  

The rules themselves are fundamentally unfair because they do not have an incentive for Cal Water to share its fate with the community it serves and do not take into account its nature with appropriate disallowances.  

At minimum state regulators need to consider an affordability provision or a cap – and a provision that ties rate increases to the economic well-being of the disadvantaged communities being served. Lucerne should not pay even one penny to remodel corporate offices in San Jose.

It is also important to note that the purpose of the item taken up by our board meeting on Aug. 14 is to enlist the board’s help in speaking out for Lucerne.

My hope is that the citizenry will read the facts I share here and share their own. I also hope to gather stories – how residents are impacted by Cal Waters current rates, what is happening to the community because of it, and I am asking the supervisors to speak for Lucerne to this unjust system.

Our board is often faced with increasing water and sewer rates for the systems in which we manage. In these economic times, we have asked Special Districts and the county in general to avoid any unnecessary expenses – and we look for ways to avoid or at least spread any required costs out to keep the rates affordable. I believe that the public utility commission and Cal Water have that same responsibility.

I would like to suggest that citizens look at the facts and share their own facts and stories as full time residents of this community.

Here are the points I believe that need to be made by citizens to the PUC:

First, we need to note that these “average monthly bills” as stated by Cal Water do not tell the whole story for the average full time resident of Lucerne.

According to the information provided by Cal Water, the proposed rate increase is substantial, effectively doubling Lucerne residents’ water costs within three years, bringing the “average bill” from $62.85 per month to $124.22 per month. Since Lucerne residents are billed every other month, if Cal Water’s calculations hold, the average bimonthly bill would be $228.44.

While the average bill as portrayed by Cal Water is already well above those compared to other communities, it must be noted that are even greater for the actual full-time resident of Lucerne.

In this case, “average” as stated by Cal Water is misleading. Lucerne is a community that has a large number of homes which are used as vacation or second homes and therefore has a vacancy rate of over 25 percent.

While the “typical” current monthly average is listed as $62.85, we have found that the actual bill for a full-time resident is usually much higher. Cal Water’s figures reflect a much lower average bill than is typical for a full-time Lucerne resident.

Second, the community is in a downward economic cycle perpetuated by the fixed costs of the water system.

The American Community Survey, conducted by the US Census Bureau, shows that more than 41 percent of Lucerne households earn less than $25,000 per year. This is in stark contrast to just under 20 percent of households for all of California.

Nearly 25 percent of Lucerne residents have had an income below the poverty level in the past 12 months.

Another indicator is that nearly 62 percent (22 percent in all of California) of households that rent have an income of less than $20,000 per year.

Over 42 percent – only 20 percent in all of California – of those households spend over 30 percent of that income on housing costs.

How can these families afford to spend, on average, an additional $735 per year on water?

Again, this increase is based on the numbers provided by Cal Water and we expect that the actual rate increase and burden on Lucerne residents will be much higher than stated. This community is already struggling to survive under its current water rates.

Third, the onerous water bill is a significant factor in the pushing families to the economic brink in the community of Lucerne – perpetuating the downward economic cycle in this community.

The entire ratemaking process does not take into account this destructive cycle – costs are simply allocated to those who remain on the system and the “averages” do not tell the story.

Taken to its extreme – if only two residents remained in the community – would they be responsible for the entire costs of the system?

Fourth, state regulators and Cal Water share the responsibility for turning this downward economic cycle around.

The underlying ratemaking structure is at issue here. At minimum, an “affordability cap” for the fixed costs of any company’s system as reflected water rates would make sense when addressing rates for these disadvantaged communities.

As the Board of Supervisors, and board of directors for many water systems, we take this responsibility seriously when allocating rates for the communities in which we serve water – we would expect Cal Water to do the same.

Finally, we need to question the motivation behind the rate increase.

The Cal Water application states that the increase is necessary due to a decrease in water usage since the last increase, and therefore a subsequent increase is needed to cover the fixed costs of operating the water system.

However, among the top reasons for the increase are $108,000 for salary increases, an additional $38,000 for employee benefits and repayment of cost incurred for a remodel project in 2011 at Cal Water’s office in San Jose.

Cal Water’s application shows that 34 districts are expected to share in the cost of renovations that have already been made to the San Jose facility. The Lucerne ratepayers are expected to pay the second highest share per volume of water of those 34 districts.

A small system, such as Lucerne, requires a large portion of expenditures to be shared by a small number of users. This formula is not fair to a small group of ratepayers, particularly ones with extremely low incomes.  

A larger district with more users to spread the costs can afford new trucks, higher salaries and better benefits, but to expect that same level of support from a small, disadvantaged community is problematic and unfair.

In these difficult times, and with no apparent relief to the economic crisis in sight, the last thing that should be placed on the backs of local residents is the doubling of their cost to access our most essential resource, water.

I call on the citizens of Lake County to support Lucerne’s fight with this unjust ratemaking system.

Ask the PUC to deny the application for a rate increase as proposed by the California Water Service Co. for the Lucerne rate area and request the rate structures for small utility systems be analyzed and revised to reflect the undue and unrealistic burden on ratepayers.

Denise Rushing represents Lucerne, Calif., and the Northshore of Lake County on the Lake County Board of Supervisors.

Recently I have received numerous inquires concerning my plans for the Clearlake City Council election.

After nearly three decades of public service to the city of Clearlake, I will not be seeking reelection. It is time to rest.

I began my public service career in the early 1980s when I became employed with the city of Clearlake. My long tenure with the city has provided me the landmark honor of becoming the longest serving employee in our city’s history.  

When I first walked through the doors of City Hall seeking employment, I never imagined that one day I would ultimately become an elected official, receiving landmark votes twice in our city’s election history. That honor affirmed the trust the citizens of Clearlake placed in me. It was that trust that I carried with me each day of my elected tenure.

In 2004, as I ran for a seat on the Clearlake City Council, I made only one promise. My promise was to always work hard and always work in the best interest of our community. I never forgot that promise.

Each day I would remind myself that the things I did and the decisions I made could have a lasting effect on the lives and well-being of people. I knew I had the ability to impact lives, so I took my elected position seriously.

As the years rolled by as an elected official, the more I did made me want to do more to serve our community. There was always a new challenge around the corner to help make a bigger difference.

This “part-time” council job became a full-time job to me. There were many calls on my time, filling my schedule daily. Soon my whole life revolved around this council job.

Throughout my years on the Clearlake City Council, I have had the privilege of representing our city as a three-time mayor and two-time vice mayor.

I find it difficult to think of the many accomplishments that I was a part of during the last 30 years. It is impossible to sum up these accomplishments at this time.

One of my strongest passions was promoting safety for our seniors, our youth and our communities.

I was privileged to spearhead the Burns Valley Pathway project for senior safety, as I always believed seniors should be valued, supported and appreciated.

When a drunken driving tragedy struck my family, it kindled inside of me a passion to help others. I created the award-winning Team DUI to help educate our entire county on the true realties of driving under the influence with the educational focus on our youth.

Through Team DUI, many lives have been saved and many more will be saved.

During my years on the city council, I advocated for public safety, utilizing my many years of budgeting experience and knowledge to play a key role in building effective teamwork to help provide our police department the necessary resources to maintain public safety within our community.

Throughout my entire tenure on the city council, i never let the fear of challenge keep me from doing what i believed was in the best interest of our city.

I did what I felt was right, respecting individuals’ rights to their opinions. I faced challenges with honesty, integrity and respect, as the key to success was to be true and ethical to my principals.

I never compromised my values to achieve popularity.

My career with the City of Clearlake has been an amazing journey. Regrets after nearly 30 years – I have a few, but too few to mention.

At the end of the day I can reflect on how I served our community, knowing that the office I held was all about helping people, as the heart of our city is the people within.
 
To all of the citizens of Clearlake and the many wonderful individuals throughout the entire county, please accept my heartfelt gratitude for being part of my life and allowing me the opportunity to be part of the life of our communities.

I will always be proud to call Clearlake my home.

Judy Thein serves on the city council for the city of Clearlake, Calif.