Saturday, March 11, 2006
Homework, for those of you with nothing to do of a rainy Saturday morning, go to www.sanluisobispo.com (the Trib's) site and download and read the two depositions by CSD interim Manager and CSD administrative services manager Pat McClenahan. Their depositions were part of the Trib's March 10 story. After reading it, see if you can tell me: Does anyone know how money gets tracked and accounted for in huge state/federal/local projects such as the Hideous Sewer Project? To say it's an amazing shell game of "accounting practices," and real bank accounts and "incrementalism," and hide the salami and who's on first is putting it mildly. According to Hyatt's 3/10 story, the district went from having $6.4 million down to having $250,000. So, what happened to the rest of the $4-plus million? The story doesn't make that clear and, so far as I can tell, neither do the depositions. Well, maybe the CSD's budget, due in a few weeks, will clarify the Trib's story? Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
Dear Ann Calhoun, I have just been going over the desposition of Blevskey, and I find there is no mention of the large property on Ramona and 4th down from the tri w site, that was announced as condemned for the tri-w project by bruce Buel( for use in the sewer for run-off amenities or such )at a meeting in mid 2005. This is very large property that the CSD aquired in a "friendly condemnation" as Mr. Buel put it. I was surprised to see no mention of that in the desposition. Would you know what happened to that property? It could bring in some money for our community. Thanks Ann your a true warrior and a delight to read. anonymously yours
Ann,
Read Dan's deposition and the deposition of Pat as well. Also the newspaper story recently about Karen the "illegality" from way back in the last decade/century/millenium.
In any case, Dan's answers seem less "honest" than do Pat's. Furthermore, it looks as if he is either somewhat ignorant or he is interested in obscuring the truth.
Don't know for sure, but I do know that if that's how he's going to present himself when on the stand during whatever trial is upcoming ... we're hosed.
He just doesn't come off well. Perhaps if we had a CPA who would be willing to back Dan up...
"In any case, Dan's answers seem less "honest" than do Pat's. Furthermore, it looks as if he is either somewhat ignorant or he is interested in obscuring the truth."
A full 12000 rpm + a dose of hubris & slander.
Shark,
I don't think you or should try to conclude much about Dan or Pat from the depositions.
They both answered to what they believed were correct interpretations of the accounts. Dan is a contracts guy, Pat an office manager. I don't think either one is a CPA to my knowledge.
Whether their interpretations are valid is another matter. I wonder if the State even cares, they probably just want to know what the money what the money was being spent on.
Shark, you're the numbers guy, go thru the deposition answers with a pad and pencil and then reconcile the CSD budget for everyone.
Ann, you misquoted the story. The story said the district estimated it would have $250,000 left by the end of the year (didn't specify fiscal or calendar). It didn't say it was down to $250,000.
In reviewing the depositions, I couldn't reconcile the whole $6.4 million.
This is what I got roughly from the statements, and I could be wrong obviously, so take it with a grain of salt:
From the SRF loan, $850,000 was paid to Barnard, $540,000 was paid to Monterey. $$247,000 was paid to the lawyers. I couldn't find any statement about payments to Whitaker.
$3,000,000 is in the Wastewater SRF fund NOW (about $625,000 in checking, $1,700,000 in a WW trust, and $690,000 in an escrow for repayment (should go to whitaker)).
So, $6.4 M - $3M - $1.7 M = $1.7 M.
The contractors and Harza are still owed about $3.6 million, and the lawyers are owed about $500,000 from what I could piece together roughly by statements.
Unfortunately, we don't have Dan and Pat on the blog to ask what about the other $1.7 million was spent on, or I missed something somewhere in their statements. Maybe you should invite them. My spouse is still here, so I'm sure of one place it didn't go.
You can bet those contractors are going to try to get a judge order them paid as much of the $3 million in the account as possible. As Ann says, stay tuned.
Publicworks said: "Ann, you misquoted the story. The story said the district estimated it would have $250,000 left by the end of the year (didn't specify fiscal or calendar). It didn't say it was down to $250,000."
Uh, it isn't clear to me the difference between "left" and "down to." Plus, I don't think it said whether it meant fiscal or calendar. Blesky said he was aming to have the budget done by Mid March, so maybe that will tell? My quarrel with the story is illustrated by what you've done above; Why didn't the Trib story at least outline the chumks of money that were? did? might? earmarked? to go where. The one question I had after reading the story was, Uh, what happened to the other 4 something mil? If newspaper stories, especially headline ones, are supposed to inform the reader, this one needed more work, methinks.
As for the "friendly condemnation" property mentioned above. I have no clue. It should be on the books somewhere, shouldn't it? (Unless it was some weirdo purchase -- see my latest blog entry on my new job opportunity.)
Publicworks said: "They both answered to what they believed were correct interpretations of the accounts. Dan is a contracts guy, Pat an office manager. I don't think either one is a CPA to my knowledge."
I agree, but what puzzled me in the Trib story was Hyatt said, "". . . along with sworn statement from administrative services manager Pat McClenahan shows internal conflict AMONG (emphasis mine) district officials over the legality of using its loan money ..." Did I read Pat's depositionswrong? It sounded like it was a disagreement BETWEEN Pat & Dan. ("among" means more than two.) So, I naturally concluded that there must have been some other district officials involved who were being refered to? Maybe those citations were dropped out of the story?
Ann,
You're reading the $250,000 is off. The story said the district expected to have $250,000 by the end of the year. Not that it only had $250,000 now. But a budget would confirm that, although anyone who really thinks the budget on this thing can be accurately forecast 9 months has got a hole in their head.
You've hit the nail on the head on the Dan/Pat dispute. The questions is, did they get a legal opinion on the use of the funds. If the dispute was just between Dan & Pat, that's not comforting.
And if so, whose legal opinion, McClendon? Biggs? Seitz? It's a legal accounting question.
Who would be authorized to go direct to get a legal opinion? Dan for sure, but Pat is under Dan, right?
Anonymous said...
Dear Ann Calhoun, I have just been going over the desposition of Blevskey, and I find there is no mention of the large property on Ramona and 4th down from the tri w site, that was announced as condemned for the tri-w project by bruce Buel( for use in the sewer for run-off amenities or such )at a meeting in mid 2005. This is very large property that the CSD aquired in a "friendly condemnation" as Mr. Buel put it. I was surprised to see no mention of that in the desposition. Would you know what happened to that property? It could bring in some money for our community. Thanks Ann your a true warrior and a delight to read. anonymously yours
Calhoun replies: I saw CSD boardmember Tacker at the booth at Farmer's Market and asked her about this "large property." She said there is no such thing, but there were several narrow "easements" being negotiated for pipelines & etc. So, if you have any further details, suggest you bring it to the CSD booth at Farmer's Market, and/or leave a copy at the CSD office for the Board and they can check into it.
The new CSD is following the emotions of the two residing CSD. When will the CSD come to there senses and start making good business decisions. Paying legal fees among legal fees is not good business decisions. Dan Blesky “the contract man” what a joke!!! When will Los Osos take responsibility of cleaning up their contamination of mother earth? Come on Joey, all that lets protect the environment but also keep using bathroom in Los Osos. Quit contaminating environment Los Osos!
Uh, re Anonymous's posting, above: if you were the one who brought up the topic of "a large property down on Ramona," etc., what does your above comment have to do with my response concerning said "large property?" I really suggest you go to Farmer's Market and the CSD booth and ask any of the CSD Board members manning the booth.
Bleskey has proven that he is a moron of the first order.
Why the hell doesn't the judge appoint the Administrative person, Pat McClanahan to audit the frigging books? Seems to me she is the only one who knows how the hell to do the job.
He put her on leave so she could not see what was going on!
Post a Comment