Thursday, November 10, 2005

Bwa-hahahahah. Will the State Water Board's Spokesperson Tell Us Another One? Bwa-hahahah!

Oh, it just keeps getting worse, if that's possible. According to this morning's Tribune story, the CSD's General Manager has sent the contractors back to work, but now it's not clear where the nice money to pay them is coming from.

The State Board's letter says only that the State Water Board will consider resuming the loan, uh, maybe, sometime, whenever, like who knows, not guaranteed. Also not known is what action has been taken on the breach of contract matter. Well, no matter, it's Gong Show West and here's the Laugh of the Day:

State Water Board Spokesman, Willliam Rukeyser, when asked by the Tribune "if it was irresponsible to fund the sewer project right before a heated recall election" skirted the question but said, "We've been absolutely prudent with the state's money."



Shark Inlet said...

Yes, the Trib article quite effectively questions the honesty of Wednesday's CSD press release. It would appear that the CSD told us the state gave them an assurance that contractors would be paid if work continued. The state spokesman said "no".

Perhaps there are some back-channel dealings that we are unaware of, but it sounds to me like Danny-boy may have lied to us to get better press than the previous day's "we're doomed to another $70/month on top of the previous $205/month" article.

Another question is this ... what, exactly, made it onto the Nov 16 agenda? Looking at the SWRCB website where they claim to have all agenda items available online by Nov 7, I see nothing related to us at all. Perhaps this is a closed session item? If closed session, it would be about Dan's letter and the resumption of payments, not about the "negotiations". Perhaps they're just late to put last-minute agenda changes online.

Color me troubled...

Shark Inlet said...

I've just been looking through Dan's letter to the SWRCB that the Trib has put online.

It is interesting that the "contract guy" either doesn't read contracts carefully or he is willing to misrepresent the terms of the contract. In paricular the lie can be found at the top of page 3. Blesky claims that subparagraph 15.1 allows for suspension of work by the owner without penalty. Here is the problem with Dan's claim ... the SWRCB is specified in the contract as the owner of the project, not the CSD. In other words, the state, not the CSD can pause construction for up to 90 days without a problem. No where in the contract is the CSD awarded the same right.

Admittedly, I am not a lawyer or a "contract guy" but I can read. Maybe he has a plan or a scheme, but if his best argument (typically what one lists first) is that he confused who was who in thee contract, his argument is pretty ... um ... stupid. Certainly one a "contract guy" should not make.

Shark Inlet said...

Item number 2 from Dan's letter to the SWRCB.

See page 18 of the pdf. This is an attachment which has Dan's e-mail reply to the SWRCB lawyer who wrote something like "get back to me to verify that everything is going according to contract." Dan wrote "we have not terminated any contracts to date fully intend to resume work on the collection system." In other words, the state lawyer wrote: "verify by 5pm that you will continue work on the TriW site as well as the collection system" and the CSD GM wrote back "we haven't yet canceled the contract for the TriW construction but we might." Hardly what the state was asking for.

Dan dropped the ball in this letter. The state asked for assurances and the CSD refused to provide them.

NewsstandGreg said...

Ann, Sharkie and all,

Keep the comments coming and notice the adjustment. We now know when and on what date any comment was posted! --G

Anonymous said...

Gee Wilikers! I'm only a mechanic, but, If I was a CSD, I'd be calling a lawer about now! Makin my poor head spin! Did you hear Dan Blakesly on AM 940 this morning? saying he and the rest of the republicans just had to buck up and bend to the voters wishes? What about us? Mike Green

Shark Inlet said...

I would hope that the CSD has already talked with their lawyer before coming up with any plan.

I found it also troubling that the e-mail from the SWRCB lawyer to Dan claimed that she had called the CSD lawyer several times with no callback. This should never happen.

I didn't hear the radio this morning at all ... I was working. I do suspect it was SAM Blakesly and his comments on the recent election were not at all relevant to the LOCSD.

Churadogs said...

To Newstand Greg, Great, thanks. We now have dates for the comments as well as times. That way, anyone scrolling down can try to sort out who said what when, since so much of this is constantly changing and breading news.


Anonymous said...

Oops my bad, It was Sam, Well, I guess that about says it. The State votes and they "buck up" We vote and they "---- up".
I guess I'm just feeling a little non relevant.... Mike Green