INGLEWOOD — Councilwoman Gloria Gray was served with a verified legal complaint during the public comment period of the Inglewood City Council meeting on Sept. 1 alleging she holds two elected offices that the California attorney general has defined as “incompatible.”
Quo Warranto complaint delivered at council meeting
Residents Daniel Bookman and Conner Everts of the Southern California Watershed Alliance handed Gray a Verified Complaint in Quo Warranto while the council was in session. Quo Warranto is the legal mechanism used by the California Attorney General to determine whether an official may be removed for holding conflicting public offices.
“incompatible”
The complaint follows previous complaints to the Los Angeles County District Attorney, whose office declined to pursue removal. The matter centers on Gray’s simultaneous service on the Inglewood City Council and as the Division II director for the West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD), a regional water agency that provides about 77% of Inglewood’s drinking water.
Alleged conflicts tied to water rate decisions
Public records cited by complainants show recent WBMWD actions that have increased costs for agencies buying water. A city public notice referenced a 12% Metropolitan Water District purchase-rate increase effective Jan. 1, 2025, and projected a further 10% increase anticipated Jan. 1, 2026. The city’s materials stated that the projected 2026 rate change would cause the City to spend an additional $2.7 million for water purchases.
| Date | Action | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 1, 2025 | MWD purchase-rate increase | 12% |
| Jan. 1, 2026 (anticipated) | MWD purchase-rate increase | 10% (projected additional $2.7M cost to city) |
Complainants argue that because Gray participates in decisions at WBMWD that affect wholesale water costs for Inglewood, she faces recurring conflicts of interest when the City considers water-related matters. The complaint asserts Gray rarely recuses herself from such votes, leaving District 1 and the broader city without clear, conflict-free leadership on issues that directly affect residents’ water bills.
Legal path and local implications
If the Attorney General pursues the Quo Warranto action and succeeds, a court could order Gray removed from one of the offices she holds. The complaint delivered Sept. 1 seeks precisely that determination under state law.
- Who filed the complaint: Inglewood resident Daniel Bookman and Conner Everts of the Southern California Watershed Alliance.
- Legal mechanism: Verified Complaint in Quo Warranto, used by the state attorney general to determine authority to hold office.
- Primary concern: potential conflict when water-district decisions affect city water purchases and rates.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney had previously declined to pursue removal. The complaint filed in council chambers moves the dispute into the state-level process that determines whether the dual service is legally permissible.
The case raises immediate questions for city officials and residents about governance and accountability on water policy — an area where municipal decisions translate directly into household bills. With WBMWD supplying the majority of Inglewood’s drinking water, any legal ruling that alters who represents local interests at the water district could have practical consequences for rate negotiations and future infrastructure spending.
The verified complaint delivered Sept. 1 is the latest development in a matter that intersects municipal governance, regional water policy and resident concerns over rising utility costs. The Attorney General’s office will decide whether to investigate and potentially litigate the Quo Warranto petition. For now, the complaint places the alleged incompatibility of Gray’s two elected roles squarely in the public record and gives residents and city leaders a clearer legal pathway to resolution.
