Pages

Saturday, December 10, 2005

HOLY COW. TIME TRAVEL COMES TO LOS OSOS! QUICK, WATSON, BOOK ME A FLIGHT!

Ah, yes, Holiday Time here in Sewerville. The stockings are hung with care, the mice are scurrying about, things are in the wind or hanging out to dry or running for cover or moving to France or something.

The State Revolving Fund Loan went bye-bye for now. This may be A Good Thing since trying to twist into knots to preserve that loan involved so many tangles to the whole Tri-W plan that cutting free MAY allow the community to get that millstone from around their necks so they can start looking seriously at alternatives. In other words, evidence first, verdict later instead of vice versa.

A whole bunch of lawsuits filed against the previous CSD Board have been settled, thus clearing the decks for -- no doubt -- about a jillion more to come. The Tribune story concering same fails to note just which 5 lawsuits were settled --Lord, there were so many, hard to keep track. But the CSD has retained Burke, Williams & Sorensen (who helped write the Measure B initiative, if memory serves, and went to court to sue the old CSD when they went to court to try to stop the Measure from being put on the ballot -- ah, such tangled webs we weave.) The Trib quotes interim General Manager Bleskey as saying that BW&S were hired because "Their specialty is dealing with messes."

Boy, did THEY come to the right town.

And now, a Dec 8 cover letter from the CSD to Marshall W. Davert, Vice President of Montgomery Watson Harza (the firm that designed and was acting as contract manager for the Tri-W sewer plan/plant) giving notice that MWH is in "violation of Government Code 12650, the California "False Claims Act."

Specifically, it cites that "The Contract . . . purportedly signed on September 1, 1999, by Bruce Buel for the LOCSD and attested to by Karen Vega purportedly on the same date . Carol Tate, a Vice President for MWH also purports to have executed the Contract on Sept 1, 1999." The letter contends that the contract may be invalid because the LOCSD Board didn't approve Agenda Item No 13 concering this contract until November 4th.

Here's how the letter puts it: "The date of execution of the Contract is September 1, 1999. It appears that the date of execution of the Contract is in conflict with the date of the Board's November 4, 1999 authorization. There is no provision in the Board's authorization to back-date the Contract."

Further, "There is no record of the LOCSD Board of Director's taking any action to ratify the Contract." And, weirdly, according to the letter, "On October 22, 1999, the LOCSD entered into a contract that established an employment relationship with Mr. Bruce Buel as the General manager, . . . Mr. Buel's first day of service as the General Manager was November 16, 1999. "

Further still, "Mr. Buel was not the General Manager of the LOCSD until November 16, 1999. Since Mr. Buel was not employed by the District until November 15, 1999, he was not an agent for the District and had no authority to execute the Contract and he had no authority to backdate the Contract."

Aw, Jeeeze. Does somebody gotta lotta 'splainin' to do, some more? Or, happier thought, Has Los Osos accidentally stumbled on the secret of Time Travel? And is now able to go back to the future?

Yes. Los Osos. Never a dull moment.

35 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

So, is the CSD contending that MWH doesn't deserve the $5.5M they've already been paid because of some fraud?

My first question ... did they do the work they were asked to do? I am sure that even if there was some impropriety in the dating of this issue, a judge wouldn't awared the CSD some $5.5M simply because the dates didn't match up correctly.

Seems like the CSD is grasping at straws now.

Anonymous said...

Shark,

This is not a straw. And we may not yet know all the details surrounding the contract, so conclusions should be avoided.

This is disturbing to everyone regardless of which 'plan' they want. One would assume the contract was a public document, meaning it could have been dealt with eons ago - and the fact it surfaces in 2005 is peculiar, to put it lightly.

It's hard to imagine that the first action of a newly hired GM, regardless of whether they work for a CSD, city, state, or country, would have been to backdate a contract - it's crazy - but hey, it's Los Osos.

Shark Inlet said...

Don't get me wrong. It seems that there is something really wrong (with Bruce and the previous board or at MWH) but whether this CSD can recover more money from MWH than they'll spend on legal fees would seem to be questionable. After all, MWH did do the work.

It will be interesting to find out what did happen, though.

I am beginning to think of this whole Los Osos thing as like "reality TV" but better ... mostly better because it is, in fact, real.

Anonymous said...

Let me add,

You just don't backdate contracts - period, at least that I know of (although I'm probably leaving out half of the mortgage loan industry - but that's a whole 'nother story). Maybe there might be mechanisms to make retroactive payments for services, but that would not include backdating.

These are the types of actions legal counsels throw up red flags at.

Any contract that is predicated on a fraud is a fraudulent contract. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Anonymous said...

Well Well Well. Substantial allegations of fraud against MWH.
On this project?? Never. Not ever. Must be those Crazies like Al Barrow behind all this. Just grasping for straws. Only 50+ invoices. Give em a break, I mean weren't they only 50% off after 6 months on Project cost anaylsis? C'mon nobody is perfect...

Churadogs said...

Dear All: What? Nobody's lobbying for Time Travel? It would be waaaay cool to think of Mr. Buel being officially starting work on Nov 16, then he steps into the Time Travel Machine and awaaaaay we go back to Sept to sign a few contracts, then Whooosh! ahead into the future. Maybe ten years from now the CSD will uncover a contract signed by Bruce in Dec. 2015 when, in real-time, he's in France or the Fiji islands or something. This has limitless possibilities.

Anonymous said...

WHAT!! You mean we've been gnashing our teeth to nubbins for nothing! I'm with Sharkey, I think this reads live a bad TV script. Kind of like "The twilight zone" mixed with "South Park"
But as I've said before, Fraud is how we do buisness around here, It's our signature Government style!Mike Green

Shark Inlet said...

Perhaps I wrote too quickly earlier when I appeared to blow off the lawsuit ... but I still stand by my thought that even if the CSD is right and that something stinks in the MWH contract and invoices, it will be quite difficult to prove that money is owed the CSD. Even if it can be accomplished, my suspicion is that the legal costs to get that cash will be considerable. In essence, a lawsuit would be a risky move. Perhaps the best thing to do (if there really has been some sort of fraud) is to let the DA deal with the issue.

If there is evidence of criminal action it would be quite easy to recover money from MWH. I suspect that this is a distractionary action. Even if there is a real problem, the fact that the CSD is releasing the info now, when pretty much everyting else in the news is bad, would suggest this was carefully timed, somewhat like Dan's press release in October that said "the state will start payments as soon as work begins and we're getting back to week within a week" came out right when there was bad news. By the way, whatever happened to that? Did the work start back up as Dan promised ... or was Dan lying to us? I forget.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the value of pursuing a claim might be overrated. Whether or not there was an initial contract problem, it doesn't make the Tri-W project any less viable.

btw, the comments about contracts were general in nature - there may be valid reasons for the signature dates and other designations of authority that are not know.

It's just amazing that if this was an issue, it wouldn't have been brought up years ago - it's hard to believe these documents haven't been reviewed.

About the Tri-W project, it now may actually be too expensive without the loan. There comes a point when a homeowner is probably better off getting their wastewater issue resolved themselves, rather than thru the district's actions.

Anonymous said...

Inlet, maybe you should change your moniker to Centrifuge. Sometimes you spin so fast & hard , It would make Bill O' Reilly
dizzy...but proud. Publicity stunt?? Why is it that for you only this board lies?? Meanwhile, The recalled board only msde small errors in judgemnt at worst. I'll say this much, you're a good soldier to the end. Without a doubt on Pandora's Xmas card list.

Anonymous said...

>>It's just amazing that if this was an issue, it wouldn't have been brought up years ago - it's hard to believe these documents haven't been reviewed<<
Who would have reviewed them????

Shark Inlet said...

Yes, I would say that any CSD project is now more expensive than solving one's own problem. The gizmo solution Ann suggested has about the same total costs (in current dollars) over 20 years as does TriW. The fact that this CSD has pissed away the only realistic common solution should be an embarassment to them rather than something they are proud of.

Dogpatch, might I suggest you focus on the question at hand rather than some accusations of spin. I've been pretty quick to admit the problems of the previous CSD board ... I just don't see them behind every problem, unlike Ann.

If you can explain how Dan was telling the truth back in October when he told us that the state told him that they would start the money flowing again if construction would simply resume, I would be happy to admit that there is not an established history of distractionary tactics. If you cannot explain how his statement was factual (which will be difficult), you do have to admit that the timing was pretty questionable ... the day after the Tribune published an article telling us that moving the plant out of town simply wouldn't save any money and that losing the SRF would cost us some $70M.

With the recent timing of this announcement (of something that surely they've known for a few weeks at least) would suggest something. On this question we may never be able to determine who is right. Who knows.

Anonymous said...

The question at hand, being that this is Ann's blog, are the allegations of fraud against MWF & the implications of involvement by the former CSD & its staff, You,shark, are as ususal trying to divert & dilute from the main issue. I find it particulary facetious when Belsky's actions are compared, say to Michael Drake, or many of those who were once in power, and their public annocements, content & timing wise.
Don't think the SWB were playing cosy with the Times Trivial?? Check out the SWB internal memos PDF at their website. Nathan Welton might just be showing a bit of journalistic inquiry...
A good read for all

Shark Inlet said...

Drake was also very much a dofus.

I find it funny that you are claiming that my goal, when I claim that Dan is trying to distract us from the news, is that I am trying to distract us from the news.

Fair 'nuff. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

While I am not trying to distract others, I did want to point out that I see a pattern here. If there is no real pattern here it is my error. If there is a pattern of releasing "good" (from the POV of the current board ... or "bad" from the POV of the previous board) stories just when the news is especially "bad" (from the POV of the current board) this board has sunk to a new low. And considering Drake ... that's pretty darn low.

So ... go ahead and return to the discussion of how evil MWH, Bruce and Stan are.

I am still wondering, however, whether anyone will really start to ask questions about Dan's press release which appears to have been incorrect. I figure that either Dan was lied to by the state, he misunderstood what the state was saying or he lied to us. If he was lied to by the state (about resuming payments once construction started), why hasn't this board complained about this matter (they've complained about pretty much every other slight by the SWRCB)? So, he must have misunderstood the SWRCB's position or been lying to us. If he simply misunderstood what they were saying, we have a dofus in the GM position ... someone as bad as Drake. We are pretty much hosed if this is the case. If, on the other hand, he was lying to us, we are also hosed ... that this board has hired someone to lie to us to achieve their goals rather than tell us the truth.

So, what's your position on this matter? ... Oops, I forgot, you view questions about the integrity of Dan and Lisa and the gang as off limits.

Sorry for bringing it up.

Anonymous said...

How can you compare the timing of a press release to potential contract fraud involving million$? And Yes I do believe at this early point in their tenure that questions about this new board's INTEGRITY is waaay premature, facetious, and a predictably low tactic. Call them naive, shortsighted, doofuses,whatever else you want. But to call them liars in order to deflect, or mitigate, increasingly justifiable criticism of the actions of the recalled board takes gall. You're better off continuing to whine about making somebody else pay for your sewer bill. Much better pathos than calling good folks liars, IMHO.

Anonymous said...

Disclaimer, I do not know if Sharkey and Dodgpatch are having a rumble or a catfight.
But I do want to thank Ann for the very interesting blog. This whole bit about fraudulent contracts, less that honest press releases, and the shining bit of comment from (I'm laughing so hard I can hardly type) Publickworks, about every man (or woman) for themselves in this mess. Ah, Los Osos. I'm hoping someday somebody writes a childrens book about the Grinch that hosed Pooville.
In the meantime, I was at a holiday party down in Groover Beach, And someone asked me "Hey Mike, whats going on with that sewer thing in Los Osos?"
Can anyone help me come up with a short, kind of like a holiday letter, synopsis?Mike Green

Shark Inlet said...

Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of the word "good" in the context of "good folks" as you use the phrase. Do "good folks" typically do things that make the lives of others far more expensive?

I gather from your lack of comment on Dan's press release that you are granting the point ... that Dan lied to us all ... even though you are not willing to speculate on the purpose of that lie.

Let's just say that you and I disagree ... that you would prefer to argue that the waste of the previous board (up to about $20M at most) is worse than the waste of the current board ($70M at least). Fine.

I have no problem with people who are willing to take pot shots at the previous board and their actions ... after all, they did some really stupid things. I would like, however, those same people who criticize the previous board to be willing to look at the actions of the current board in a critical light.

Again, I apologize if my words offend your tender sensibilities.

Shark Inlet said...

Mike, I can help you with your summary ... but did you want it to be favorable to the previous board, the new board or unbiased? Did you want the summary to be self-deprecating or angry? Did you want a summary of only the last few months, the last few years or few decades?

Until you give us a bit of a clue, let's just summarize by saying "people in Los Osos don't know shit."

Anonymous said...

That's a start!
Thanks Sharkey!
"People in Los Osos don't know shit"
A good start if I say so myself.
I don't think leaving out the last few decades would be honest, that could lead someone to develop a bad case of "Drake's Dementia"
I just don't know quite what I would put next.
Maybe something to the likes of "Hey hey it could happen to you too!"Mike Green

Anonymous said...

Dan Blesky is not a liar. He is a professional who is working very hard for the good of his clients. The RECALLED board has caused this community exponentially more harm than the new board supposedly has. Contractual fraud potentially in the millions vs. questionable Press Releases. Hmmmm. Your numbers are your numbers and are about as convincing as your condescension. My sensibilities are just fine, thank you. However, as easliy as you throw the "Liar" bomb out there, I wonder about yours, Snarky. Frankly, People in Los Osos do know a lot about shit, because they are being forced to eat so much of it. Its just that some swallow it smiling & then ask for seconds, while others offer rightous resistance. I'm standing by this board and its actions & I'll continue to do so. So go ahead attack away, maybe you can figure a way to call me a liar too.

Anonymous said...

I am a liar, Sharkey is a liar, Dogpatch is a liar, Ann is a liar. so is everyone.
Admitedly, we punish liars differently. We do so according to our perceptions at the time of the lie. The winners will be "just stretching the envelope of believability" (how'd you like that one?)
The losers will be "Goddamn Liars"
Be careful who you pin that title to,
unless you absolutly know what the outcome is going to be.Mike Green

Anonymous said...

At least I got somebody to laugh!

Why wouldn't the contract have been looked at in the past? You wouldv'e expected sewer opponents to review most of those documents, since they've been fighting it since 2001. And there was a Grand Jury review way back then.

Hey, every man (woman) for themselves would probably be the most effective way of getting something done - after all, dogpatch refugee thinks Los Osos people know sh*t.

Personally, this district needs some money, and if MWH is responsible to fork it over, I won't shed a tear for them.

Anonymous said...

"People in Los Osos do know a lot about shit, because they are being forced to eat so much of it. Its just that some swallow it smiling & then ask for seconds, while others offer rightous resistance".
Dogpatch, may I use this qote for my holiday letter?
Right after Sharkey's
"People in Los Osos Don't know shit"
I'll only add the word "but"
Thanks! Mike Green

Anonymous said...

Oops, I meant "But some".Mike Green

Shark Inlet said...

Publicworks,

You have it right ... if MWH is truly responsible for doing some $6M in damages to the CSD it would be good for them to pay us back. It is an interesting point you raise when you mention that Pandora haters have had the opportunity to review these documents for at least the last 5 years. I wonder whether these documents were simply overlooked or where there is a more interesting story.

I also wonder whether there is some interesting story behind the negotiations that allowed the CSD board to decide it was more important to pay the lawyers that they did not owe than the contractors that they did owe. Absolutely amazing!


Dogpatch,

You claim that Dan is not a liar. Fine. How can you justify his statement that "the state has told us they'll pay as soon as we start work back up" and "we're starting work within a week" (not exact quotes) with the facts that no work was started and the SWRCB spokesman said "um ... what are they smoking down there" (yet again, not an exact quote). Again, the only way I can see this making sense is that someone from the SWRCB set up Dan to look like a fool, Dan is a fool or Dan is a liar. To me the explanation that makes the most sense is that Dan lied to us to throw the press off for a while. You tell us Dan is not a liar but you've offered no evidence that the SWRCB tried to set him up or that this "contract guy" is somehow incapable of reading and understanding English. Don't expect us to agree with you just because you say so.

By the way, it seems that you're arguing that my suggestion that this board has lost at least $70M and that the previous board somehow squandered less than $20M is incorrect. Let's talk about each for a while. Suppose you put the blame on the previous board for starting construction before the recall and some sort of fraud with MWH ... the total dollar figure for both actions is less than $20M. If you can find other "frauds" and costly "mistakes", please mention them and we can wrap them into the total. Let's look at the actions of this CSD board ... losing the SRF which saved us some $70M in interest payments. If you want to include fines (at least $11M in January, likely more within the next few years if we don't start construction right away), the cost of designing a new plant (maybe $5-10M), buying property ($4M), EIR, lawsuits and the costs of zoning changes, getting the County and CCC to sign off on the site and plans ($2-10M) plus inflation in construction costs ($15-$50M, depending on the rate and time until construction) and the likely impact of suing the SWRCB (a higher interest rate once we do go borrowing later down the line ... some $25M) ... On the other hand, this board will likely want to sell off TriW and Broderson ($12M or so) and build a plant that will be cheaper to run ($20M over 20 years). On the balance, it seemed like these numbers add up to far more than $70M so I rounded down.

You are using the same argument Ann was using for some time: "we don't really know the numbers so don't you dare bring them up." After the Trib pretty much verified (in an an article the day before Dan's now famous press release) the numbers I was just guessing at, Ann piped down.

Okay, I've gone on and on and on and on. Aplogies.

In summary ... until you offer some sort of explanation of how Dan came up with his press release that we all know was less than factual, it would seem that my theory makes the most sense.

Anonymous said...

Uh, thanks, Dear Shark Inlet, apology acepted. To read your last rant,it would lead me to believe that the only thing that matters in life is cost, well, I'll admit that is dear to my heart too, but defiance and smoke and mirrors has got us out of a lot of bills so far, It seems to me that glacial review might hinder the "piper"quite a bit more, at this rate nearly forever.I say "put on those eyepatches, give Ron his freeking hat, PIRATES OF LOS OSOS! RISE UP!!Mike Green

Anonymous said...

Okay Mike, just so long as you don't say you didn't get crap from me for the holidays.
How about, since I've always viewed myself, inspired by our beloved comander and chief, as a "uniter not a divider" the following objective PC version of the bumpersticker:
Los Osos Can't Agree On Shit.
Now doesn't that have bit more seasonable community spirit to it???

Shark Inlet said...

I'll buy that bumpersticker!

Anonymous said...

Me Too! I'll buy! Heck, I'll buy 50, Remember when, if you only just stopped at the "Trees of Mystery", your car ended up with their bumperstickers?Mike Green

Churadogs said...

Ah, Bwa-hahahahah. A little levity before Christmas. Good. Now, let me toss this into the mix regarding Bleskey's "the State's sending the $ & we're going back to work" remark. First, all those statements will have to come under scrunity in the legalism of the Breach of Contract complaint. Second, in dealing with the SWB and their staff, please keep in mind that they apparently don't know the meaning of the word "negotiations," and are like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland (Through the looking Glass) who sniffed, "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Are you saying that the word "consider" should typically be interepreted as "will"? If so, I will consider listening to your argument.

Anonymous said...

Oh boy, I really didn't think this thing could ever get any weirder but it just keeps on going like one of those incredibly long convoluted bad dreams ya never wake up from. {sigh} I mean, $20M here, $70M there, more and more and more millions everywhere ya look. With no end in sight. Gawd, this is like a board game. Totally fascinating and I don't even live there. (yet)

So, uh, I took at peek at the everyman for himself gizmo and ya know? The Equaris Biomatter Resequencing Converter and Greywater Treatment System - ya gotta love the name too! - looks kinda cool. Would it really be more expensive for every household to get one of these than to continue with any of the sewer options which might, or might not, still be an option? (And I use that term loosely.) And I'll bet you could get a group discount which would make them even cheaper. And I'll bet each household could even get some fed or state subsidization or tax relief or something to make it even more interesting. (See solar energy subsidies.) The Los Osos sewer thing has been going on for 30+ years, all the while continuing to pollute, and you're still no closer to a solution. With an aggresive schedule the every home solution could be implemented within a year or two. Which is many years (perhaps even decades) sooner than any of the communal options. Could these things really be an option? Have they every really been considered? Or seriously re-considered given the current situation?

I can think of all sorts of benefits to Los Osos for this option beyond just the immediate sewer crisis. First of all, it reflects the somewhat independent (and contrarion) nature of the Los Osos community. And it sets a great precedent for other fragile environmental settings. The Los Osos Sewer debacle might become an exemplary model representing both the bad AND the good of governmental beaurocratic bungling ending in an ecologically and financially acceptable compromise. It would also tend to self-limit future development yet still allow future development. Something Los Osos hasn't seen in decades. New housing, business, schools, etc. would all have to resolve their own sewer loads thereby covering an often hidden cost to the community of such development.

Would any sewer infrastructure still be required if every house had one of these? Say a light grey water treatment system? If so it would surely be much cheaper and lower impact than any of the current options. A dinky little system like that might actually fit on the Tri-W site without incurring the problems the current plan creates which might mean some SWB funds might still be available. I hesitate to go any further than that on that topic ;-)

Why not an every house for itself solution? The new improved bumper sticker might say: "Los Osos Knows its Shit" or "Los Osos has its Shit Together" (which kinda makes a neat acronym too.)

-- a kibitzer from afar

Anonymous said...

Lots of speculation about why nobody noticed the back dated contract before now.

Did anyone ever think that the contract was never released by Buel when requested under the Freedom of Infomation Act?

Is it possible that in addition to committing fraud that Buel would also hide/withold documents from the public?

This is just the tip of the iceberg so I would be watching the papers closely. And timing has nothing to do with it Inlet... I'm sure if the CSD Board wasn't busy on other fronts this would have been in the papers weeks ago. There's only so many hours in the day.

They are putting out so many fires caused be the old board do you actually think they have time to worry about timing press releases. Give me a break.

Anonymous said...

Dear kibitzer, No, that kind of system was never given a fair shake.
The Great Los Osos Sewer Wars, are not realy about sewers.
Well, they are in a little way.
The main brew ha ha is about power, political power, egos, and beuracratic turf.
If it were realy about just putting in a wastewater treatment plant. None of us would be going through this shit.Mike Green

Anonymous said...

Some Anons get it, others don't Anonmikegreen gets it too.
Me, although it is yet be proven, I think corruption hangs over this project like so much sewer gas, and has for years. Please, everyone go get a copy of MBNEP's report on the health of the bay. Determine for yourself if their findings back the edict which says that Los Osos is damaging the bay in a manner worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Man oh man just think where that money could go for some real good to be done.
How many mentally ill people are sleeping freezing homeless throughout the state tonight?