Pages

Saturday, October 01, 2005

The Children’s Hour

The newly elected CSD board held a pretend meeting on Thursday, Sept. 29th, which turned into a Thank-You fest. (Full disclosure: My “public comment” was to recommend the board have some huge banners printed up and displayed in the auditorium [during CSD meetings] with Mark Twain’s dictum on them: “Always tell the truth. It will astonish your friends and confound your enemies.” If the previous CSD board members who had just been recalled had done that years ago, perhaps we wouldn’t be in this present predicament.”)

Covering the meeting the next day, the Tribune quoted former board member Gordon Hensley as saying that he thought this pretend meeting looked “ . . like the petulant children have taken over. It’s a tantrum.” The paper did note that Hensley wasn’t actually present at the meeting, so I had to presume he was watching the proceedings on TV? But the comment was a pretty good illustration of the tin-earedness that landed all three directors out onto the street. Instead of actually hearing what those tantrum-tossing “children” were really talking about, they were dismissed and sent to bed without milk and cookies. And, like all wicked children, they would have their final say.

On the other hand, I had to really wonder: How could Gordon have forgotten? This “children’s hour” of a meeting caused in me an immediate flash-back to the very first meeting of the very first CSD. There was the same childlish glee, the same “thank-you’s,” the same hopeful huzzahs from a grateful audience, the same snarky, heh-heh-we-won triumph. Surely Gordon couldn’t have possibly have forgotten that, could he?

Over at, New Times, Cartoonist Russell Hodin’s wicked take was to show a box nailed shut with the name “Pandora’s Box” on it Her name had been crudely crossed out and above it was the word, “Ballot.”

No doubt, sly reference to the final campaign contribution figures (and donors) which have yet to be reported out. It’ll be interesting to see just who and how much came in to each campaign war chest at the last minute. That’s the ridiculous way our laws allow us to do it – deliberate cluelessness -- Please don’t let us know until after it’s too late, until after the election’s over, just who the big rollers were, please, please.

Tonight, Saturday, Oct 1, in a special meeting at Sunnyside school, the new CSD board, now officially certified and sworn in, will hold a “real” meeting. In what can only be described as another tin-eared, irony-free comment, former board member Gordon Hensley was quoted in the Trib as asking of this Saturday meeting, “What’s the rush? Usually the old board meets with the new board. There’s the passing of the gavel.”

Apparently, Gordon completely forgot that the old CSD board president Stan Gustafson canceled the regular board meeting set for the 29th. That would have been the perfect time for the old board to post notice, amend the old agenda, then engage in all the nice “gavel passing” that Gordon mentioned.

And as for Gordon’s question as to “What the rush?” Uh, Gordon, let me take a guess here. Could it be the new board felt it critical to vote to issue a stop-work order to the contractors who, without that official stop-work order would continue digging holes in the ground, shoveling tax payer money into the holes, then covering them up – a process they’d keep on doing world without end amen, until they received an official, legal order from a duly elected board – like, say, a meeting the old CSD board could have called even before the election and themselves voted on just such a contingency, should the recall be successful. That’s what a fiscally responsible board that cared about not wasting taxpayer money would have done.

Of course, if the former CSD board had not turn-keyed the contractors until after the election, and then set an earlier election date (exactly what the recall supporters begged for), NONE of this wasted money would have been pounded into the ground in the first place. That waste is totally the responsibility of the former board majority. So if anyone in the community wants to whine and wring their hands about pounding money down rat holes, please go see Gordon, Stan and Richard, thank you.

Also up for Saturday’s agenda is a decision that could be described as: “What do we do about Bruce Buel, the general manager? And whatever shall we do with our newly hired PIO, Mike “No Spin” Drake? The Trib reports that Bruce is retiring in January anyway so his severance agreement will take him to that point, no harm, no loss. He could head to France without missing a single paycheck. [Correction, as per Director Shicker at the 10/1 CSD meeting, the Trib had the date wrong; Bruce's contract is up in 07, not 06. So, there goes France, at least for a while. Dang! )

As for Mr. Drake, however, the Trib reports that he’s considering “challenging the board’s decision if it violates the terms of his contract” . . . but “. . .declined to elaborate,” which is good since elaboration usually leads directly into “spin” of some kind and that’s the one thing Mr. Drake needs to avoid at all costs.

Meantime, the world waits with bated breath for Mr. Roger Briggs of the RWQCB to check in. The key question for him and the Regional Board is this: Do you want a wastewater project that the whole community can get behind and then, with the RWQCB’s help, rapidly move forward on getting it built? Or do you want the entrenched, go-nowhere-forever, Pyrrhic battle of a wasteful legal World War Three? Take your pick.

While Los Osos waits, I would suggest we all read the Oct 1, Tribune letters section and especially a letter from Bill Garfinkle, who ran some voter numbers, noted that about 34% of the registered voters couldn’t be bothered to vote in this election , and then concluded that “22.8 percent of the people (less than one in four) made the decision for all of us as to how we will spend a large amount of our income for the next 20 to 30 years.”

It’s a quote that needs to be emblazoned onto a banner and strung up at the entrance to the town. Additionally, maybe it’s now time for a New Rule: When you hear someone whining or complaining about this election, the old Board, the new Board, sewer this, sewer that, and all that “wasted money,” FIRST ask them IF they voted. If they didn’t, you have my permission to slap some duct tape on their mouths and then sit them down in a chair and force them to look at the big, ugly, stupid expensive mess at the Tri W site for 10 days.

Then, from that point unto the end of time, they’re to . . .ZIP IT!

9 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

Ann asks about Roger Briggs: "The key question for him and the Regional Board is this: Do you want a wastewater project that the whole community can get behind and then, with the RWQCB’s help, rapidly move forward on getting it built?"

Really? Do you really think that the new group will be able to get the whole community to sign on to their project (which they've finally admitted the haven't figured out)?

I can immediately think of two groups who won't be behind the new plan (whatever it is). People on a fixed income who would find even $100/month too high and people who were supporters of the past CSD and their plan.

Certainly if the new group can't get us bills that are less than the last group's $200/month, they'll be lacking support.

Wait until the new CSD asks us citizens to increase our taxes just so that they can study (again) the various issues and design a plant and collection system.

Wait until the RWQCB tells the new CSD that their new plan isn't acceptable so won't get a low-interest loan.

Wait until four years of inflation in contractor wages brings the total bill up considerably.

Wait until the bids on the construction contract come in 30% over estimtated.

No, I suspect that unless the cosmos align, there is about zero chance that the whole community will get behind the new plan.

As to your last point, Ann, I somewhat agree ... that someone who didn't vote should just shove it. On the other hand, what about those who didn't vote back in 2001 and 2002 when the current (TriW) plan was devised? Should they have been denied the opportunity in the recent election? If that were the case, I suspect that Measures B-E would all have failed. Nearly all the most ardent recall supporters I know were people who didn't vote back in 2001-2002. Hmmmmm.....

Churadogs said...

How many people in Los Osos really, truly, honestly loved the idea of a sewer plant in the middle of town? Not even the Tribune could get behind the idea, instead, they whined and wimped out.

If cost were truly the ONLY guilding principal on this "old" project,then why wasn't the community given full disclosure on O & M costs, plus all the other deferred items, i.e. imported water, possible purchase of additonal land for larger leach fields, etc.

And why wasn't the community given two systems to compare and choose between. Then we'd see how much extra money people were willing to cough up to not have a sewer plant in the middle of their town.

As for the rest, we'll just have to wait and see. Sadly, all of this could have been avoided if the CSD had done the Chinese menu method back when the Ponds of Avalon failed to meet RWQCB standards for nitrates. Even then, the Board could have asked voters, do you want to return to the county plan or shall we plow ahead and see if we can come up with something else so we can keep our sewer in the middle of our town and we'll let you know the price later?

Shark Inlet said...

I would humbly suggest that the previous CSD board(s) were making choices that they believed were the best available to them at the time. Until the latest three, each boardmember was elected by approximately 80+% support of the community. They were very clear during the 1998 campaign for the CSD that they would do a park along with the plant. They had a mandate from us to procede with their plan.

Perhaps in retrospect we can say that this plan or the voter approval of the plan was unwise, but what would Rose and Stan think? The solutions group plan, including the park and location was one that it seemed people liked. It was only after the community approved of the low-interest loan that some started rumblings about the location. If those same people had made noise earlier, back in 2001, we could have avoided the problems we are in today. Shoot, if Steve Sawyer had been even one year earlier with his recall idea, we would not be in the problem we are in today.

You can blame the previous boards as much as you want. I can blame the naysayers as much as I want. The fact is that we can't change the past. We can, however, move forward and tackle the next issue ... what choice do we want the current board to make? I am afraid that they'll move the plant out of town, no matter the cost like they promised their supporters. I am afraid the new board will face the same frustrations and lawsuits that previous boards did and that the cummulative effect will be to considerably raise our bills.

My prediction as to the total timeline and cost if we "move the sewer" ... 5-6 years until it is built and a total bill of $275/month for residents. Any else in the pool?

Churadogs said...

The original "compact" between the newly formed CSD (and linked at the hip) and the voters was this: We'll give up the middle of our town for a $35 million sewer step/steg Ponds of Avalon. Thirty-five million syste. Not $78 or the county's $85 or the present $1653 and counting. That was the deal.

And when that deal fell through, the CSD had an obligation to go back to the community and get, by vote if necessary, get another "mandate." They didn't do that.

And from that failure, I believe, came all the devilment that's now consumed us.

Shark Inlet said...

I beg to differ, Ann.

In representative government we elect people to make a large fraction of the decisions for us. Having every issue decided by a vote of all the people is absolute lunacy.

After the fancy step/steg and ponding plan fell apart, we continued to support the board and their actions. In 2002 (after the CSD changed the plan from 50% collection to 100% collection and after we were told that we needed a "conventional" plant not a fancy ponding system) we elected Stan, Gordon and Richard. We knew at the time what they were proposing to do. As a community we supported them in their proposal.

Elected representatives are under no obligation to take votes on every issue. It would have been nice had they done a poll or raised the issue clearly and asked for public comments, but there is no obligation.

Face it, if you are going to argue that the CSD is under an obligation to go to the voters to ask what they want to do, you must argue that the current board must ask voters about all reasonable sites, including TriW. I have yet to hear you on that issue.

Anonymous said...

Leaders do not do what people tell them to do. They listen, and do what they feel is best for all.

Churadogs said...

In 2002, the community was told that the present plan was the ONLY one, that the CSD had thoroughly examined ALL other sites and plans and this was the ONLY one that would work. We now know that simply wasn't true. So that begs the question: What else wasn't true?

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Why do you believe that the CSD hadn't considered Andre and Pismo thoroughly?

Now, in retrospect, we know that TriW was more environmentally sensitive than Andre and Pismo, but at the time I believe it was viewed as less sensitive. Certainly Andre was classified as ag-land and getting the county to convert ag to industrial when another viable and less sensitive location was available would have been somewhat challenging.

Face it, you are now faulting the board then for making a decision based on incomplete information and telling us that they've reached the only reasonable choice. What is the board doing now? Making a decision based on incomplete information and telling us that TriW is not a reasonable choice.

If I recall correctly, back in 2002, we had already voted to take on the low-interest loan that specified the TriW site so to change sites could have considerably increased the costs ... hence TriW was the frontrunner and it would take a considerable amount of data to show that another site should have been preferred.

If you can offer proof that they told us TriW was the only site that would work and that they knew this to be a lie, I am all ears. Until then, please don't insinuate that they've been lying all along.

Churadogs said...

We were told that the CSD board had thoroughly looked at all options. All options. When the Cleath & Assoc water report come out I was surprised to find a recommendation to look at Ag Exchange. I say surprised because that issue had come up before the we were repeatedly told, We've looked into that and it won't work. So I asked: Did anyone cost that option out already? And Bruce replied, No, that was never examined or costed out.

Huh?

When you tell me all options were examined, don't come back later and say, oh, heh-heh, did we forget to mention, uh, we didn't actually look at that. So, what ELSE didn't they actually look at.

No, from day one this was a project that was pre-formed and pre-decided and so anything that didn't fit what the CSD had already determined was discarded.

I have to return again to my question: Why did the previous CSD board fight so ferociously to keep that Tri-W site.

And, by the way, if memory serves, on the original assessment ballot, it says nothing about Tri-W, only shall we assess ourself for a wastewater treatment project, etc. The point of the assessment was to raise money to start work on design, etc. At that point nothing was in concrete so the Board could have, at any time past that assessment vote, spent that money on side-by-side genuine comparisons and then presented them to the community for a vote. They never did that. Why?