Valley Water Workers Demand Leaders Resign Over Ex-CEO's Contract

Employees protest $700,000 separation deal for former CEO accused of sexual harassment

Published on Mar. 12, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Dozens of Santa Clara Valley Water employees protested at a board meeting, demanding the resignation of directors who approved a $700,000 separation agreement for former CEO Rick Callender. Callender was accused of sexual harassment, but the agreement allowed him to remain as a special advisor for a year. Employees accused the board of prioritizing Callender over the well-being of workers, and the crowd erupted in applause when one of Callender's accusers spoke.

Why it matters

The controversy highlights tensions between Valley Water leadership and employees over how to handle allegations of misconduct by top executives. The case raises questions about accountability and transparency at the public agency, which provides water services to Santa Clara County.

The details

An investigation found that Callender, who was the first Black man to lead Valley Water, had sexually harassed employees. However, the board approved a separation agreement that allowed him to keep his $700,000 in total pay and benefits and remain as a special advisor for a year. Employees accused the board of prioritizing Callender over their well-being, and demanded the directors who approved the agreement resign.

  • In November 2024, employee Velia Mariscal filed a complaint alleging Callender made inappropriate comments and sent her inappropriate messages.
  • In February 2026, just days before the investigation's findings were made public, Callender resigned and the board approved the separation agreement.
  • On March 8, 2026, Callender's attorney filed a letter arguing the investigation misrepresented his messages with employees.

The players

Rick Callender

The former CEO of Santa Clara Valley Water, who was accused of sexual harassment by multiple employees.

Velia Mariscal

An employee who filed the initial complaint against Callender in November 2024, alleging he made inappropriate comments and sent her inappropriate messages.

Tony Estremera

The chair of the Valley Water board of directors, who approved Callender's separation agreement.

Rebecca Eisenberg

The only Valley Water board director to vote against Callender's separation agreement.

Salam Baqleh

A spokesperson for the union representing many of Valley Water's 800-plus employees.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“You are showing that he is more important than the rest of us.”

— An unnamed employee (paloaltoonline.com)

“I can't help but wonder, if the second woman hadn't come forward, whether (Callender) might still be here. I continue to experience retaliation and isolation after reporting misconduct. No woman or employee should have to choose between their livelihood and well-being. We come to work to do our jobs and support our families. I understand speaking here today may place a large target on my back, but continuing to remain silent is no longer an option.”

— Velia Mariscal, Employee (paloaltoonline.com)

“The allegations are not true, and I think the evidence we provided in our letter demonstrates there's clearly another side to this.”

— Rick Callender, Former CEO (paloaltoonline.com)

“Your decision has made national headlines.”

— Betty Williams, Former Sacramento NAACP Chapter President (paloaltoonline.com)

“My office sustained those allegations and we recommended termination (of Callender) because it was the right thing to do. The behavior from that point forward rests with (the board directors). And it is beyond blame — it is nothing short of shameful.”

— Debra Dake, Former Program Manager (paloaltoonline.com)

What’s next

The Valley Water board has said it will discuss the process for hiring a new CEO at its next meeting.

The takeaway

This controversy highlights the need for greater accountability and transparency at public agencies when it comes to addressing allegations of misconduct by top executives. The case raises questions about whether the board prioritized protecting the former CEO over the well-being of employees.