Pages

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

FRONT PAGE!

Ah, my beloved Bangladesh By the Bay made the front page of the Tribune today, March 7. Big time front page headlines, “Osos CSD to pay for flood repair.” Woooo!

As is so often true with most Tribune stories, this one started out on its constantly mutating peregrination by appearing to be about (1) the CSD will pay the homeowners up front for damage to some homes caused “after contractors struck a water line while working on the agency’s now-defunct sewer project.,” (2) then get reimbursed from the insurance agency later, while (3) CSD General manager Blesky told the reporter that the insurance carrier told him they only received the claims report last week while (4) none of the insurance company reps could be reached for comment, which means the question of whether the insurance company was acting in a timely manner or the CSD reports were sent in late remains unanswered, which is O.K. because clearly this story is of such urgency and importance that it has to run before all the information is in.

Even though this “news” (authorize the CSD to pay the flooded out folks, then wrangle with the insurance companies later) was announced, if memory serves, several weeks ago at a CSD meeting.

But then, by the jump page – typical Trib – the story shifted focus and noted that even though the district received “most of the residents’ claims by the first week of January, it did not supply them to The Tribune until Monday, despite numerous requests.”

And there it was, the story within the story, the first real story, the story that should have made the front page headlines: TRIBUNE SNUBBED ON INFO REQUESTS, AGAIN! (Remember the RWQCB stonewalling the Trib’s request for info on the Los Osos Forty-Five targeted CDO citizens? Got ignored, got foot-dragged, finally got only a partial redacted list, waaaaay late, boo-hoo, in total Violation of the public Records Act & etc.!)

And, then, this: CSD lawyer Julie Hayward Biggs explaining that the delay “was because the district’s records were disorganized and they were ‘still looking for claim documents.’”

And, there, of course, is the second REAL story – records in a muddle, an internal audit, another request by citizens for the DA to investigate the CSD Boardmembers, a dissolution campaign going on, the CDO hearings coming up (the CSD signed on as a designated party), ongoing regular CSD business, unavoidable delays, avoidable delays, staffing problems, in short, a CSD staff under fire from so many guns – THAT story, the REAL story goes missing.

And once again, the reader is left to ramble into misleading headlines, then down the rabbit hole of text confusion and jump-page switcheroos – another typical Tribune moment!

Get me rewrite! Or at least an editor?

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I guess you did not like the tribune story? Could you tell us how your really feel? Any factual points to present to refute the article?

I thought not!

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Should we presume you would have preferred "CSD Lawyer Claims CSD Staff Disorganized" for the headline?

The story had two parts in it ... the CSD has agreed to pay then deal with the insurance later and the fact that the CSD didn't deal with the newspaper's request for information in a timely fashion. The fact that the CSD cannot comply with legal FOIA reqests is news and troubling. Either they are refusing or incompetent. You've said the same thing yourself about the RWQCB. Why are you now appearing to defend the LOCSD?

Anonymous said...

Nice spin Sharky... again!!

I don't see support from Ann in her comments. I see criticizm of the Tribune and a desire to hear from the insurance company.

I am a staunch NEW CSD supporter and this article concerns me. Why not release those documents?

I do have trouble believing the Biggs qoute wasnt taken out of context. Even if that were true, would she tell a reporter that??

I want the new board to follow the law in regards to FOIA requests... but I am not going to pretend that this instance is in any way similar to the responses I got from the OLD management at the CSD when I requested documents.

There is a difference in a delay in providing documents, and a flat out denial of ever relaeasing a document with no justification as to why... which happened on regular occasions under the old board... and I have the denial letters to prove it.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Ann says:
Even though this “news” (authorize the CSD to pay the flooded out folks, then wrangle with the insurance companies later) was announced, if memory serves, several weeks ago at a CSD meeting.

FYI - It was announced but not voted on until the March 2 meeting. Four vote "Aye," Vice President Fouche votes "Nay" and the vote passes four to one. Go figure why this took so long.

And an aside: If the Trib hasn't out-and-out lied as to Ms. Biggs quote, just what OTHER claim documents might these be?

And whoever is at fault for operating in a timely manner or filing the documents late, just when would all the information be in? Can't see either party in this instance "'fessing up."

Yeah, with all the brouhaha going on over in that CSD office, no wonder they can't get the minutes out on the first couple of month's board meetings. One can only hope that the responses to the RFP's will be filed a little more carefully.

Mike Green said...

Gee Ann, why get all in a huff? Most of my friends are glad their pet parrots can't read, otherwise they would have to buy butcherpaper to line the cage.
Wouldn't want them pesky parrots getting all uppity thinking they were smarter than us, now would we?
Reading the Trivial is a trial and tribulation.
They do seem to be getting a little better though, at least now they actualy ask for documents, no wonder it caught the CSD board off guard, totaly unexpected!

Mike Green said...

Friends, check out sewerwatch
http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/
A local girl needs help.

Churadogs said...

"Anonymous said...
Nice spin Sharky... again!!

I don't see support from Ann in her comments. I see criticizm of the Tribune and a desire to hear from the insurance company."

Besides being a perfect muddle as to the Real Story (Will the REAL story please stand up?) one of my my quarrels with THIS story -- besides its not being clear -- is that it wasn't ready to run. There was nothing "breaking" about it -- the request to pay upfront and tangle with the Ins. Co's later, was made several meetings ago, the vote had to wait on agendizing the request, but was hardly "breaking news," so why not wait until you could get a response from the Ins. Co's? Did they or did they not receive the claim forms in a "timely" manner? Were they or were they not dragging their feet? Why were the claims forms, as public documents, not immediately available at the CSD office? Overwork? Staff shortages? Too Busy? Nefarious skullduggery afoot? Whaaaaat?

And so forth. In short, a story not ready for Prime Time and certainly not ready for the FRONT PAGE (did you notice that the CSD non-story bumped Thomas not re-running --major player in Washington for this county relegated to second banana to a non-story Los Osos story. Weird. But Sooooooooo Trib.

Anonymous said...

It is actually pretty simple. Who owns the waterline? Who locates the waterline? Who is responsible for the waterline being located properly? Who pays when the utility locator marks are more than ten feet where the utility is located?

Answer: The owner of the utility!! {CSD}