Pages

Friday, July 14, 2006

Stop the Presses! The Los Osos CSD is found NOT GUILTY of . . . uh . . . ummm … well, something or other.

Yes, Sewerville was indeed shocked to pick up a copy of the July 12th Bay News to read the stunning front page story that involved former CSD director (recalled) “Gordon Hensley, now of Los Osos Taxpayer’s Watch, a citizen group that opposes the actions of the current board and seeks to have it dissolved." Seems Gordon had accused the new Board of “conducting board business via the Internet on computers owned by the State of California. . . . Rumor was that the four directors who work for Caltrans had been caught in what amounts to a ‘conflict of interest’ under state employee rules . . . “ i.e. doing the CSD’s business during their Caltrans work hours.

After plowing through about 400 emails, the Bay News learned that Caltrans “indicated that no complaints were filed, no investigations were conducted and therefore no reports were available to review. Caltrans also said it had not turned the matter over to headquarters or the Attorney General’s Office, which seems to indicate that the agency discovered nothing to suggest a Brown Act violation.”

But, there were some emails that did indicate a few cases where either the Directors sent out brief replies to whoever had contacted them at work, as well one case where they had emailed each other, and so the Caltrans spokesman told the Bay News that “We’ve made sure that corrective actions were taken to assure that employees aren’t conducting non-state business on state time, or non-Caltrans business on state time,” to which the CSD directors agreed, while noting that most of their emailing consisted of brief replies or replies to give their personal email address and/or forwarding any emails that came into them from their constituents to their personal email accounts.

So, much to the disappointment of Gordon Hensley and Taxpayers Watch, there will be no public hanging after all. But Gordon should certainly pursue this matter, perhaps by filing another lawsuit. I think there’s a few dollars left in the CSD’s bank account, so another lawsuit would certainly take care of that. And since Gordon’s neighbors and fellow citizens will be paying all the legal fees his lawsuits can generate, there’s no need to spare any expense.

On the other hand, the notion that "rumors" may have prompted Hensley's public acts request does contain a certain amount of comic irony. For years, questions have been raised about Gordon’s many tax-paid trips to Sacramento while he was in office and rumors floated around that speculated about the possibility that while he was there schmoozing with water officials on CSD business, was he also, perhaps, taking a few minutes here and there (while still on the tax-nickle-clock) to promote his own consulting business? Perhaps the Bay News should see about a public records request to see who he was emailing ( phone records would be nice or interviewing witnesses to "official-business "cocktail party chatter and such like, lots of time to mix public and private business) and/or what he was doing while in Sacramento.

All of which puts one in mind of the old folk saying, “Only one who has hidden under a bed himself, thinks to look there first.”

Meanwhile, back at the ranch . . .

At the July 13th CSD meeting, public input and comments on amending the Blakeslee Proposal went forward, with a cautionary legal analysis offered by the CSD’s attorney, Julie Biggs (copies available at the CSD office). The various concerns and proposed amendment additions and modifications will be taken by the sub-committee (Schicker and Fouche) to their meeting with Blakeslee and representatives of the County and from there any additional changes to the bill will have to make the rounds of all parties to see if the proposed changes improve the bill or are ignored or will be a deal breaker or deal enhancer.

One of the most serious concerns the community should have about this bill is the language that now relieves the County of any liability issues regarding the wastewater project they will be assuming, language that right now is both vague and unprecedented and, if not modified, could result in a public entity building a huge public works project but having no liability for that project? It’s a situation that could result in a variety of bad outcomes for which the district and the citizens would have no legal recourse.

So, it remains to be seen if both the County and perhaps lawmakers in Sacramento will see that such a loophole could have unintended consequences for everyone and so amend or modify it since the intention of the provision is clear, but the language isn’t. And law is all about language and the devil is always in the details.

And so the process moves forward, Plod, Plod.

78 comments:

Anonymous said...

If you go to the Tribune discussion Groups , you will find that others, some 21 phone calls, brought on the investigation. (If you can beleive what you read).

At the same time there were rumors circulating about this misuse of time, and the board bembers needed to be cleared of these rumors. Apparently they were not unfounded, but amounted to nothing big.

Thank you people interested in justice for getting these unfounded rumors behind us. But don't I remember something about a personal $1200 cell phone bill submitted to the board by Lisa, where she was only paid $600? ( or perhaps not paid ) Is it not against the law to submit a false invoice to a government entity? Felony perhaps? This needs to be cleared up also.

Ron said...

Ann said:

"But Gordon should certainly pursue this matter, perhaps by filing another lawsuit. I think there’s a few dollars left in the CSD’s bank account, so another lawsuit would certainly take care of that."

Sad yet funny.

"All of which puts one in mind of the old folk saying, “Only one who has hidden under a bed himself, thinks to look there first."

So good.

What's up with that bitter, little guy? This? (After reading that link, it reminds me, could someone run a tape measure on Nash-Karner, real quick? What's she top out at?)

An Anon said:

"If you go to the Tribune discussion Groups , you will find that others, some 21 phone calls, brought on the investigation"

Let me take a wild guess... some of the "others" just happened to be some of the same people that lobbied for massive fines on their neighbors. Just a guess, but methinks there's probably some overlap there. Hell of a bunch... those "others."

Again, thanks for the report, Ann. Excellent stuff.

Spectator said...

I left the meeting last night to read the material on suggested amendments to the Blakeslee bill.

I originally came because the meeting was listed on the web site as a general meeting where comments and questions could be asked, and found that it had been changed to a special meeting where only the Blakeslee bill would be discussed.

This board really limits discussion and public input and comments through limiting agenda. I really resent it. This has been going on for a long while.

Both could be discussed. No wonder so few show up.

I had no comments but only three questions:

1. Are the pool funds intact, spent, or returned to the county?

2. How much money is in the operating account? According to the court auditor's report there was only $200,000 there in June (date unknown). I need to know in order to anticipate payment of liens in October for $3,800 each, in case the LOCSD defaults on the Assessment loan interest due Sept. 1st which seems highly likely.

3. When will we see a complete audit or PRE AUDIT for fiscal year 05/06 which changed to 06/07 July 1st.?

4. Is the 04/05 audit with comments available at the LOCSD office?

Maybe we could get an open letter with no spin on the above questions. Or are they unreasonable questions?

Ron said...

Spectator said:

"1. Are the pool funds intact, spent, or returned to the county"

Unless I missed something, it's still very much up in the air as to whether those were ever strictly "pool" funds?

Apparently, according to sources, Nash-Karner brought some type of "ballot" measure-thingy to a CSD meeting a couple weeks back that showed LO allegedly assessed itself for pool funds in November, 1996.

I'm going to need to see a copy of that alleged "ballot."

If someone could be so kind:

SewerWatch
P.O. Box 120
Santa Margarita, CA
93453

The reason I'm interested is because I, and about half the friendly staff of the County Clerk Recorder's Office, couldn't find a word on that "ballot" measure-thingy.

Ron said...

I know, 3rd post today? Yea, well, slow work day.

But I thought of a story that I wanted to relay that's relevant to Ann's main post.

Several months ago, when I first added the new board members to the e-mail list that I use to announce a new post on my blog, I used their Caltrans e-mail address. After the very first e-mail I sent that used those e-mail addresses, they all contacted me and asked that I not use their Caltrans e-mail address, but use their personal e-mail address instead. I immediately made the change.

Just thought I'd share that.

Spectator said...

To Ron:

I have no knowledge as to the "Ballot" thing. But these funds existed for a pool, Bleskey admitted this, and they were in a CD. It is well known that the money came from the county, and reportedly some of it was from donations for the purpose of building a pool in Los Osos. I am only concerned about total potential, if not now existing, insolvency of the LOCSD.

If they do not pay the assessment interest $712,000 when due on Sept 1 or so, (default), I gonna haffta Come up with $7600 to get two liens off my property and advert foreclosure if it is NOT paid.

Do you have any idea what liens or foreclosure do to a credit rating? ANY lien that goes unpaid or is not satisfied? Bad news, crawdad!

The money to pay the assesment interest was included in the property taxes sent to the LOCSD. Where is it?

Anonymous said...

Ah you silly schmucks who believe so fervently in the county. It was wise to go to that meeting. Wiser still to read the legislation in which only the first small section (added on much later) involves Los Osos. The rest is about the county forming an Integrated Water Management District in which they will be able to assess you for services and adminstration costs associated with setting up and managing that district ... sans a Prop 218 vote. Check your next county bill after that legislation passes. ~fiendish chuckle~

Anonymous said...

To anon (12:04):

You are absolutely correct! The Blakeslee bill is to remove any county liability that has been incurred by the REALLY BIG SCHMUCKS (schmuckovitchs) who stopped the sewer! Yup, it is a pig in the poke.

In the meantime, the LOCSD is broke and way upside down. Unable to pay fines, unable to return the money borrowed from the SRF, and shortly only able to provide minimum services. So you think the bunch of bozos that put us in this predicament can solve it with NO MONEY, and NO CREDIT? Most of all, NO TRUST!

Better to be dissolved, and hastle the county. Let them assume the liability and spread it around, or part of it.

So what does a pencilla (tiny schmuck) like you suggest? Certainly pumping every two months at $400 will be cheaper than any system at this point, that is only $200 a month.

But then the BIG fines will come from the RWQCB. So what do you want to pay? $500 a month in an individual fine, or $300 a month in sewer fees and amortization?

Sooner or later when the fines double, you pays your money and takes your choice: Home or no home.

Anonymous said...

Ron,

Now you have stooped to personal attacks on people based on their physical traits?

Sight unseen, what could we find to poke fun at with you?

There must be a reason that you hide out in Santa Margarita besides your obvious paranoia.

You can get treatment for mental problems so there is hope for you, but how does one change their size, i.e. height?

And you wonder why your blog doesn't get a lot of action!

Spectator said...

Dissertation on blogs:

There have to be 4000 homes in Los Osos, occupied by property owners, each one with a computer.
Ann puts her blog up whenever she writes. There are questions to ask:

1. A percentage of the people think Ann is a kook and after reading her stuff, assume that her site is just more kook stuff. When the see the kook stuff, they never bother go to the comments, where the true intelligence is found. ( I only claim ignorance )

2. A percentage of people think she is absolutely right on, so there is no need to go to her site. However if they once went to her site, they find the same stuff. No need to look at comments from kooks that differ from her.

3. A percentage of people feel that government will always do what is right, will take care of them, and that elected representatives do not lie like hell, so why get involved.

4. A percentage of people feel that fate will prevail regardless.

5. A percentage of people just don't care, and feel they can do nothing.

6. A percentage of people have computers but do not use them, but are afraid of them. The kids use them.

7. A percentage of people are Alfred E. Newman clones: "What me worry?"

Have I left anyone out? Once upon a time I told Don Regan to put a counter on his site, because I felt he was wasting his time. Ann needs a hit counter on this site. All of us may be wasting our time.

Anonymous said...

Spectator said......."I originally came because the meeting was listed on the web site as a general meeting where comments and questions could be asked, and found that it had been changed to a special meeting where only the Blakeslee bill would be discussed. This board really limits discussion and public input and comments through limiting agenda. I really resent it. This has been going on for a long while."

Very interesting, Spectator.......I think you just lost your suspenders.........

First, the meeting schedule on the CSD web site lists the 7/13 Meeting as a "Special Meeting Workshop" not a General Meeting. If you had been attending meetings regularly, you would know that the first Thursday meeting is the General Regular Meeting where Citizens can offer General Public comment.
So, either you're just mistaken, not keeping up, or this is just more of your dreamer BS Spin.

Second, I ask you, Spectator, to recall(HAAAAA, get it..."RECALL") ....Recall, Spectator, the meetings that were held by the former, recalled in disgrace, CSD board that you supported. Your corrupt CSD 3 stooges, with the full knowledge that the community did not support them or their nightmare project, utlized the strategy of completely shutting down public input by offering the bare minimum of one meeting per month with only one 3 minute comment usually coming at 3 or 4am....... And you actually have the audacity to now complain that you're getting limited input? HAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
Your new CSD is offering you 3 times the access and input into your local government with a minimum of three meetings per month....a General Meeting, a Workshop Meeting, and a Business Meeting .....The former assholes that you supported knew the community didn't support them or their project so they shut the community out by disbanding ALL Committees and only offering the absolute minimum of one meeting per month that often went untill 3 or 4am and people still showed up at 3am to protest......So, please spectator, don't insult us or imbarrass yourself by claiming this CSD limits public access. I would venture that no other CSD in the state of California has offered the access that your Los Osos CSD has offered you.


I also find it interesting that the "dreamers" have chosen to boycott CSD meetings. This is a very calculated and strategic move on their part. Personally, I loved it when they attended the meetings. In my mind, whenever one of them opened their "pie-hole" it was a huge advertisement against their plan and the Tri-W project. In a debate format like a CSD meeting, where our ideas are presented against theirs........THEY LOSE!!! They had 5 times as much money as us. They out spent us 5-1 on advertising last fall. They still lost. The bad news is, they realize this. They realize that if they attend CSD meetings and present their bad ideas.......THEY LOSE. Our community has rejected THEIR PLAN. They realize this. They realize that if they show up at CSD meetings, THEY LOSE. So, their only desperate tack is to boycott CSD meetings and take their fight outside of our Community. Their only desperate hope is to take their fight outside of our Community to the RWQCB and beg for fines and to LAFCO to beg for dissolution and to Blakeslee to beg for legislation. It's a lot easier to sell snake oil to someone who hasn't tried it before. Unfortunately, for the sick and twisted dreamers who morphed into Taxpayers Crotch(a special interest group consisting of a handful of sore losers who lost an election), when the Ripley report hits the street, all of these outside agencies will come to realize how ridiculous the Tri-W project and site is and that we can do better for Los Osos, for the County, and for most of all...... the quality and abundance of our water.

Churadogs said...

Spectator sez:"I have no knowledge as to the "Ballot" thing. But these funds existed for a pool, Bleskey admitted this, and they were in a CD. It is well known that the money came from the county, and reportedly some of it was from donations for the purpose of building a pool in Los Osos. I am only concerned about total potential, if not now existing, insolvency of the LOCSD."

There are two accounts: One for "public" money collected by a vote for, if memory serves, $40 a year for a pool and $10 for a "recreation" program . . . i.e. $50 a year? There should be a copy of the ballot measure somewhere on file at the county?

Then there was a private account for strictly private donations. That account is still, I think, at Mid State ??

The "voted" money (one time since the vote for Measure 218 voided out the previous vote.) is still in the CSD accounts. The Board was going to bring the matter back for a vote (whether to move it to the County or not) but all of the board members stated their committment to keep the pool money as "pool" money.

Spectator also sez:"Spectator said...
Dissertation on blogs:

There have to be 4000 homes in Los Osos, occupied by property owners, each one with a computer.
Ann puts her blog up whenever she writes. There are questions to ask:

1. A percentage of the people think Ann is a kook and after reading her stuff, assume that her site is just more kook stuff. When the see the kook stuff, they never bother go to the comments, where the true intelligence is found. ( I only claim ignorance )"

Actually, I'm surprised by the number of people who log on and "comment" and stick around and return again and again and spend enormous amounts of time commenting and yakking with one another, including YOU, Spectator. If this blog were as big a waste of time and "kooky" as you seem to be saying, why do YOU or anyone else keep coming back?

For this blog, as all blogs, I have the option of turning the "comment" section on or off. I've kept mine on. Clearly it serves a good purpose, providing folks mind their manners and get and keep a grip.

If there is one failing of comment sections in general it's this: People often end up wasting time asking questions to the wrong place. A lot of questions raised here shouldhave been asked and answered by various officals instead of speculation, angels on heads of pins, misinformation, wrong information. That's all fun and games, but if you're serious about getting answers, you need to get off this blogsite and Go directly to the official source. You may get wrong info there, but at least it will be Official Wrong Info, not wrong info from some "anonymous" poster.

PublicWorks said...

"..and Go directly to the official source. You may get wrong info there, but at least it will be Official Wrong Info, not wrong info from some "anonymous" poster. "

Boy, if that doesn't inspire confidence, I don't know what will.

As to the subject of this thread (Caltrans story), what a complete waste of time. Gordon wasting time looking for dirt. Folks wasting phone calls. Who gives a #%&$ if Lisa & Chuck talked CSD shop at the water cooler for a minute. (so long as John wasn't filling his cup). So long as they're doing their work, if they get a phone call or two every day, so long as there's discretion.

Otherwise, we should just expect a government run by housespouses, retirees, thilthy rich, and anyone who doesn't hold a 9-5. Kinda like our jury system. Sheesh.

So instead of the Bay News delving deeply into the financial status and options (or lack thereof) for the CSD, all we get is an article with the knowledge that Chuck's got a letter in his file. Whoopee!!! That'll help the community get out of this mess, won't it.

This is the kind of crap that consumes Washington D.C., and detracts from solving real problems - guess it's just as old as politics itself.

Ron said...

An anon said:

"And you wonder why your blog doesn't get a lot of action!"

No, I don't wonder that at all. Heck, it doesn't even get much action from me! (Although, I will admit, when I was doing some research on the "pool" money at the Clerk Recorder's office recently, the staffers there were all very aware of what I was looking for, and one of the nice ladies said that the subject of whether or not LO was actually assessed for "pool" money in 1996 was "hot again," and people had been calling their office looking for information on the subject. I found that interesting because it just happened to get "hot again" one week after I published this.)

Action? Not so much. Impact? Apparently, yes.

"Now you have stooped to personal attacks on people based on their physical traits?"

No. That is incorrect. I could care less about physical traits. All I did was make an interesting observation -- the wording from that link above says, "Compensatory behavior exhibited by those with a Napoleon complex may also include being overly aggressive or argumentative and a need to over-achieve, which all serve to give the person a sense of greater self worth."

Sound familiar, Los Osos?

That is not an "attack," that is a very astute, and interesting observation. And I will take credit for it. Thank you.

"what could we find to poke fun at with you? "

Plenty.

Spectator said:

"A percentage of people feel that government will always do what is right, will take care of them, and that elected representatives do not lie like hell, so why get involved."

BIIIG mistake, on every level of government.

Ann said:

"There are two accounts: One for "public" money collected by a vote for, if memory serves, $40 a year for a pool and $10 for a "recreation" program . . . i.e. $50 a year? There should be a copy of the ballot measure somewhere on file at the county? "

Oh, there's a copy of that ballot, but those were Measures D-97 and E-97 and they both failed, as I reported.

What I'm having a hard time finding, is the measure that Nash-Karner, as president of the LO Community Pool Association, said passed in November of 1996, that assessed LO for "pool" money. That's the one that I, and half the staff at the Clerk/Recorder's office, can't find.

And it's that public money that the LOCPA is claiming is "pool" money. So far, that can not be documented, other than some "ballot" thingy she brought to a meeting. I sure would be interested in seeing that document, and so would the Clerk Recorder's office.

Spectator said...

To anon 10:12 7/14

Well, when I went to the board schedule of meetings, modified on 6/21, I was confused by the insertion of a header placed between April and May. Now why was the header placed between April and May when the modification occured on 6/21? I looked up to the first header, and did not understand the lower header. The 7/13 meeting was supposed to be a general meeting according to the first header, but you are correct if one looks to the second header. Normally I am not confused. Check it for yourself:

http://www.losososcsd.org/meeting.schedule.html

Old board (3) recalled in disgrace? By votes, less than 1/2 a percent of the total? I think they were recalled through misinformation: no fines, prop "B" will protect you, the low interest loan and site are not site specific, ya de ya de ya. Well, with 20/20 hindsight, and the LOCSD fined, individual inforcement at hand (pumping), losing the low interest loan, the demand to return the loan money by the state, and the record of warnings that this would happen prior to the recall if the project was stopped, I assert that THIS board is in disgrace. Now they are upside down financially, and may be insolvent. If you look at the bankruptcy of Orange County, it may be difficult for our board to avoid personal fines and perhaps jail. This is distinct possibility. It is certainly being talked about.

Even Moonbeam, if he gets into office as AG, does not let this kind of stuff go by without some sort of prosecution. Moonbeam be straight shooter, with a Jesuit education based on logic and rationality when it comes to the law.

I attended many of the meetings held by the old board. I admit that they went on very late. I usually left early after the repeated same questions from the two women, from meeting to meeting, in an attempt to drag the meetings out. Prior to Richard joining the board, I was asked by Stan to take a position on the board by appointment. I declined. I told him he was a saint to put up with the foolishness, and told him I would speak out VERY strongly against fillibuster and foolishness. I still remember the dragon lady, speaking in metaphor, and the singer. There had to be an armed sherriff's deputy there to keep order by presence. Even Shirley Bianchi was afraid to go to the meetings, after the armed deputy was removed by the new board.

Most of us gave up. Only a small vocal minority remained, from ALL sides.

Lisa has spoken out strongly from the podium against individuals who have registered lack of trust, and some were former supporters. And now with 3000+ property owners signing a petition to dissolve, agreeing with Taxpayers watch, and the whole matter in the hands of LAFCO, I again bring up the question of trust.

You use the word "corrupt" when describing the former board. I overheard Joey Racano accuse the board of taking bribes, and this was witnessed! You express the word "pie-hole" when discussing the interactions of those opposed. You call the "dreamers" LOSERS. And yes, the "dreamers" out spent you, and LOST. It just goes to show that lies and misinformation can win elections. It does not take much money to put forth a bunch of misinformation that the electorate desparately wishes to believe. And now "the voters have decided". We will see how they decide if LAFCO decides to put dissolution up to a vote by property owners. We will also see how a 218 vote goes to rescue the LOCSD from bankruptcy. Thereafter we will see how a 218 vote goes to build a sewer. But first, we will see if there is a cry for prosecution of the board members, after property owners get hit real hard in the pocket book if and when liens are put on their homes, if there is a default on the assessment interest. Of course they will attempt make Bleskey the scapegoat, but this is speculation.

I read the full modifications to Blakeslee's bill. I do not think the county or Blakeslee will agree to the modifications with exception of the anti-constitutional "tax ghetto" provision. We shall see.

But now we are on the eve of destruction, and I fear that the ones that this board wished to protect, those of limited means, will be the ones hurt the most by their actions.

Spectator said...

To ALL:

Let us discuss winners and losers: The current board won the election by 1/2 a percent of those voting. They are WINNERS! ("the voters decided"). Yes, they gained control of the district. They are each "winners" of $500 a month in pay for their services, and their lawyers and GM have "WON" somewhere around 1MM of LOCSD money. You betcha they are winners!

But in WINNING they have perhaps lost 2/3 of their troops (property owner support), and all of LOCSD spendable money. So now they have no ammunition to fight a large array of foes: LAFCO, the COUNTY, the Water Boards, the State, and a Taxpayers Watch organization. It is uncertain even if they can "keep the lights on", much less develop and bring to fruition ANY sewer system, including the existing legally permitted and planned system.

Who has LOST because they have WON, and what did they WIN? They have "WON" nothing except the potential destruction of self rule, and gridlock. The people of Los Osos have LOST, but the board has WON. Right now there are almost double the amount of houses in Los Osos on the market than ever before, the vast majority in the prohibition zone, and THEY ARE NOT SELLING! Those who want to leave this great area CANNOT. Sad.

Shame on the WINNERS!

Churadogs said...

Spectator sez:"Right now there are almost double the amount of houses in Los Osos on the market than ever before, the vast majority in the prohibition zone, and THEY ARE NOT SELLING! Those who want to leave this great area CANNOT. Sad."

Read in the L.A. Times that home sales all over the state are slipping, prices dropping, homes staying on the market longer, and all the homes mentioned are outside Los Osos. Reasons given by the Times: market cooling off, higher interest rates, fear over oil prices, cooling economy, recession looming, etc. None of which have anything to do with a sewer.

Churadogs said...

Publicworks sez:"PublicWorks said...
"..and Go directly to the official source. You may get wrong info there, but at least it will be Official Wrong Info, not wrong info from some "anonymous" poster. "

Boy, if that doesn't inspire confidence, I don't know what will."

Bwahahahahah. I know, sad but true.

Spectator said...

Ann:

You are partially correct. This is happening all over the nation. However, much of this problem is occuring from previous speculators getting out of the HOT housing market. Originally they converted static stock market funds into the housing market during 2002/3/4, which was producing far greater gains than the stock market. During the past six months, they started converting funds from a hot housing market into cash, and putting the money back into the stock market or holding on to cash, gold, or oil contracts. This is nation wide.

Now as the stock market is dumping, and there is great uncertainty due to the mideast crisis, cash is king.

This has only a little to due with homes in the PZ, although homes here are subject to the same forces. I do not feel there has been a lot of speculation on homes in the PZ. You can pull up any home for sale in Los Osos, and by using zillow.com find when the home was last sold if within the past ten or less years. You can also look at comparible homes in the neighborhood. Zillow.com will put you right on top of the home from about 2000 ft.

The problem with home sales in the PZ is the uncertainty of the cost of ANY sewer, individual CDO's possibly pending, and the effect of possible bankruptcy of the LOCSD causing further increased costs for property owners. Bankruptcy is very expensive, and the homeowners get it in the neck.

And now we just received today an analysis of LOCSD Bankruptcy by the Tribune. With the analysis is losososfinances.pdf actually showing as of 7/13 the balances in the different accounts.

I await additional analysis of this situation, and perhaps Richard LeGros would be so kind as to revise his cash flow analysis and post it, now that we have the nitty gritty from a CPA in the LOCSD office. Things do not look good, and as time goes on will get far, far worse.

I would also like to know what accounts payable looks like, while fully understanding that invoices may not be posted, but sitting on a desk.

Perhaps the CPA in the LOCSD office would be allowed to produce a cash flow analysis? I also note that the losososfinances.pdf is not signed.

not afraid to be nobody said...

I use to post in here, quite often, as anon. I, somehow, found escape from getting sucked into the circular arguements that have the gravitational effect of a "black hole". I'm almost certain this letter will not be published. So, in response to the Bay News LOCSD article last week, I have chosen this form to present my vent.
Thanks, for the forum, Ann.



To The Bay News
A letter to the Editor
by Michael Jones, Los Osos

My letter is regarding the article in the Bay News last week titled “No Wrongdoing Found In Bay News Investigation”.
Please, let me start by copying a paragraph from that article........

"The newspaper sought to either confirm or debunk the rumors with the intentions of printing the results, regardless of whether serious wrongdoing had been found by Caltrans in its fulfillment of Hensley’s request for information........."

I guess, this is the type of reporting that one might expect from a newspaper that is free.

Memo to the Bay News :
Most newsworthy and reputable publications base their reporting on FACTS, not rumors, and work from there. A few months ago, the Bay News took on a new look with a new front page title format. Perhaps, the Bay News should take the next step. Perhaps, the Bay News should change the name of the paper to “The Bay Enquirer” or “The Coastal Star”. It’s not a bad idea. People pay three and four times as much for the tabloids at the checkout stand than they do for their daily newspaper. But, there is a big difference between worth and cost. Although the Bay News has always been free, I’ve always found some value in it’s reporting and opinion even when it differs from my own. What are the tabloids at the checkout stand worth? I would like to thank the Bay News for restoring integrity and creditability that was never really lost to the Caltrans employees in question. Unfortunately, what has been brought into question is the integrity and creditability of the Bay News. I don’t have a bird. But, if the Bay News continues to engage in tabloid journalism, I’m going to get a bird so, I can use the Bay News to line it’s cage.

Michael Jones

Spectator said...

To Mike Jones:

Thank you for joining this blog and letting All of us know who you are! Your opinion is respected. Please be feel free to express any of your opinions. You write well and express your opinions clearly. You will be an asset to reason and this blog. Thank you.

Spectator said...

Ann, of interest on the Tribune's discussion boards, after an updated cash flow analysis:

924.5492 in reply to 924.5491 by crapkiller.

To Richard LeGros:

Thank you for the time and hard work in your updated cash flow analysis. Excellence! And you have always been excellent!

Thank you for your service to the community, and the taxpayers/property owners who pay the bills. Thank you for your previous leadership and clear thinking to protect the least of us.

I bet this cash flow analysis will be VERY close, now that the LOCSD has actually released figures, and your analysis is based on figures published in the Tribune.

This is a clean spreadsheet, without unfounded expectations, and the figures speak for themselves. It is nice to be able to produce a "what if" cash flow analysis based upon released facts which have been withheld as a coverup of severe fiscal mismanagement.

COVERUP? NO TRUST? JAIL? Is this old gal bitter: How can you tell? California Attorney General (AG), San Luis Obispo Grand Jury, LAFCO, County Board of Supervisors, and Blakeslee need to ACT!

We are way beyond limiting the liability of the county by a bill. The AG needs to demand the return of all funds paid to lawyers, damages from same equal to fines, settlement of contractors suits, losses due to loss of low interest fund, and any other damages. Punitive damages need to be applied equal to actual damages.

Wil-Dan should be required to return all payments received from the LOCSD, with punitive damages equal to that received.

The individual LOCSD board members, and Bleskey should be individually prosecuted, and not be allowed to settle for less than $100,000 each, and minimum of 180 days jail time, full time.

We have fired many shots across the bow, the RWQCB the same, Blakeslee, and Shirley the same. It is time for a full broadside.

AND HERE IT IS!!!!!!!

"If not us, who? If not now, when?"

I put his up for general comment. What say ALL?

Shark Inlet said...

Well,

If nothing else, I do believe that the "new! improved!" board that will be elected in November should sue Willdan.

Why? Several reasons, but chief of those reasons is that we hired Dan from them. We pay Willdan for Dan's services. If Dan screws up (other than in some sort of criminal fashion where the authorities will be out for an arrest), Willdan is the group who bears the responsibility for his actions.

In this case, if Dan is giving advice that is ... um ... not standard or is unable to do simple tasks like let the board know (by about Feb or March) that they are spending far more money than they have coming in and will go Bankrupt if they don't stop, he is not fit to serve our community in this fashion. Even if our board is dumber than a sack of cat dander, he has a responsibility to warn them of such things. If he didn't Wildan should give back the money plus pay for some additional fine for gross negligence. If he did warn the board, he shouldn't have allowed the board to cover-up the financial disaster. These issues should have been raised in the finance committee meetings as well as at regular (and special) board meetings. A revised budget from the new group who made a dramatic change in the goals and spending plans of the CSD and a maybe simple report of how much money we had at any given point in time would have been appropriate.

Summary: Either Dan screwed up and the board was negligent to have trusted him ... or Dan did his work the way he was directed to do so by the board and this "transparent" board was all about keeping us out of the loop as long as possible.

You've got to really wonder some days whether their real plan was to screw things up so badly that the sewer is delayed by another 5-10 years minimum. I actually rather doubt it because they all seem to be long-term Los Osos residents who care about our community. On the other hand, don't they realize that if our bills skyrocket because of their risky gamble, we'll be mighty angry?

*PG-13 said...

Teetering back onto topic .... one of which, a long long time ago, was: "...Gordon had accused the new Board of “conducting board business via the Internet on computers owned by the State of California. . . ."

I hafta agree with Publicworks.

Publicworks> As to the subject of this thread (Caltrans story), what a complete waste of time. Gordon wasting time looking for dirt. Folks wasting phone calls. Who gives a #%&$ if Lisa & Chuck talked CSD shop at the water cooler for a minute. (so long as John wasn't filling his cup). So long as they're doing their work, if they get a phone call or two every day, so long as there's discretion.

This really is schmuck-raking. Or should I say still more schmuck-raking? Simply put, this is a matter between Caltrans and it's employees. For Gordon, or anybody else (TaxPayer's Watch by association I suppose), to want to get into this is, well, its simply stupid and reflects a very ugly character. Does Gordon (and by association TPW) have any limit to how low they will go to disrupt and discredit our elected representatives? Putting aside whether you support or don't support the current board they are still people, they are our standing elected reps and you cannot deny they are working hard (or stupidly hard) to succeed. If you've got a problem with their sewer strategy or book-keeping or how they run their meetings and want to raise that as an issue, cool. But to try to tattletale to their employer that they're bad employees, doing board business on company time and mis-using government computers to do CSD-related work is just totally lame. If the issue is a Brown Act violation, cool. Otherwise, get lost. We don't need this. This is not helpful. We've got more serious problems to deal with than feeding your ugly appetite for wallowing in the muck. Joey is sometimes called out for being, uh, a few steps over the edge in his passionate commitment to his beliefs. And he loses some credibility for it. That's the price to pay for such over-zealous passion. I think Gordon Hensley has now moved into Joey land. And should be viewed similarly. Two peas in a pod. Sorry Joey; you deserve better.

And now back into the weeds again ..... let's talk real estate.

Spectator> The people of Los Osos have LOST, but the board has WON. Right now there are almost double the amount of houses in Los Osos on the market than ever before, the vast majority in the prohibition zone, and THEY ARE NOT SELLING! Those who want to leave this great area CANNOT. Sad.

Churadogs> Read in the L.A. Times that home sales all over the state are slipping, prices dropping, homes staying on the market longer, and all the homes mentioned are outside Los Osos. Reasons given by the Times: market cooling off, higher interest rates, fear over oil prices, cooling economy, recession looming, etc. None of which have anything to do with a sewer.

Spectator> You are partially correct. This is happening all over the nation. However, much of this problem is occurring from previous speculators getting out of the HOT housing market. .... This has only a little to due with homes in the PZ, although homes here are subject to the same forces. I do not feel there has been a lot of speculation on homes in the PZ. ... The problem with home sales in the PZ is the uncertainty of the cost of ANY sewer, individual CDO's possibly pending, and the effect of possible bankruptcy of the LOCSD causing further increased costs for property owners. Bankruptcy is very expensive, and the homeowners get it in the neck.

Both Churadogs and Spectator are correct. Spectator more than Churadogs I think. Over the last couple of year's I've been helping some friends look for homes along the coast. I can say unequivocally that there is a huge inventory of homes on the market throughout Los Osos, Morro Bay and Cayucos. Most of them at relatively reduced prices compared to a year ago. But the PZ has an inordinate number of homes for sale, most at exceptionally reduced prices, and there isn't much selling. Los Osos homes outside the PZ are selling briskly and for a premium. Its not hard to see the PZ is a blighted real estate market. Don't deceive yourself, the uncertainly of CDO's, fines, assessments, and still no end of the sewer wars in sight is a huge factor in LO real estate values. It's almost humorous listening to the local realtors pooh-pooh the sewer thing when showing clients around town. I've actually heard some of them say "Oh, that's just Los Osos. The sewer thing has been going on for 30 years, its part of the culture. Don't worry, it will continue for another 30 years. I wouldn't worry at all about any of that. Why, look out there. All of that is soon going to be a beautiful park." < sigh >

Anonymous said...

"Don't deceive yourself, the uncertainly of CDO's, fines, assessments, and still no end of the sewer wars in sight is a huge factor in LO real estate values."

To paraphrase Dr. Wickham again, "Big centralized sewers are about clustering lots of people together, they are not about clean water. Why would you want to mix everyone's germs and bacteria along with tons of prescription antibiotics and other chemicals. Its a recipe for disaster in that new, more resistant bacteria might develop. In essence, super germs."

What he didn't say is that it is indeed all about real estate and development. The PZ has nothing to do with clean water. If it did the entire area would be under a moratorium as no discharge is permitted, even indirectly into a National Marine Estuary.

Its about development, pure and simple. Its about the gentrification, reurbanization of a bunch of late fities to late sixties dilapidated homes in the middle of the PZ. Its about a land grab of prime ocean front real estate.

In the end it is all about real estate and nothing else.

Shark Inlet said...

To our most recent anonymous friend ...

You wrote: "The PZ has nothing to do with clean water. If it did the entire area would be under a moratorium as no discharge is permitted, even indirectly into a National Marine Estuary."

I wonder about the presumed portions of your statement.

Cabrillo and Bayview Heights don't drain to the bay. According to the best (at the time and current) understanding is that Cabrillo Estates discharge would head West toward the Pacific instead of into the aquifer. Furthermore, in the case of both Cabrillo and Bayview Heights, the distance to groundwater and the density of homes allow the soil to more than adequately filter nitrates and other nasties out before the discharge hits groundwater.

The PZ, on the other hand, allows the crap to co-mingle with the groundwater and, in some locations, the bay water.

You are dead wrong. It is homes in the PZ who are polluting what was formerly clean water in our aquifer. The upper aquifer is no so polluted that we need to pump water out of our lower aquifer at a higher rate, increasing saltwater intrusion into. The water pollution, caused by folks in the PZ is all of the issue here.

Along those lines, if you can show convincing evidence to the RWQCB that the PZ should be expanded, I am sure that they would do so quickly. If these other areas were included in the PZ it would make it far easier to build a sewer and get the whole thing over with. Go look for evidence and get back to us when you have some.

Sewertoons said...

To follow sharks statement,

Maybe like Gordon, we are incredibly frustrated that the current board can run the CSD into the ground, put all property owners in peril, so we might try whatever "brakes" that might be at hand, even at the risk of looking bad. (Can you believe the board is going to continue with defending Measure B - AGAIN? How's that for a stupid waste of our money?)

There seems to be no way for us to stop them, through LAFCo or the courts. Or at least those in power choose not to become involved, except Blakeslee. And how that will work out in the end remains to be seen. The current Board has loads of amendments to AB2701, which may in the end, kill it - either by their getting included which will cause maybe enough non-followers not to vote the 218, or by their not being included which will cause the followers to not vote the 218, if you listen to their statements at the meetings.

Sounds like more delay to me. I guess the Board does not care if we are angry. They are "RIGHT" in their cause, so our anger doesn't matter.

Anonymous said...

We' re all angry! This community is totally screwed up. Get behind Blakeslee or else!

- a recall suporter

*PG-13 said...

As rationalization for Gordon's, uh what can I say, too gross zealotry in some kind of skewed-thinking support of his cause Sewertoons offers up:

Sewertoons> Maybe like Gordon, we are incredibly frustrated that the current board can run the CSD into the ground, put all property owners in peril, so we might try whatever "brakes" that might be at hand, even at the risk of looking bad.

Sorry, very weak. No, not weak, sick.

Sick like those who lobbied for massive fines against their neighbors in order to teach them a lesson and bring them back to the fold. Come on Sewertoons do you really condone such behavior? To attempt to rationalize it as frustration begs to be called out. So I must. Clearly there are no simple and easy solutions to our sewer issue. If there was I would hope we should have stumbled upon it by now. No, this is a highly politicized and polarizing topic in this community. As I said, If you've got a problem with their sewer strategy or book-keeping or how they run their meetings and want to raise that as an issue, cool. But to tattletale to their employer that they are bad employees and to draw their livelihood into question while they are trying to fulfill their civic responsibilities crosses the line. Do you willingly and consciously cross this line? Do you really support Gordon Hensley in what many people would consider unethical attacks on something having no bearing on the issues? Herein lies a fundamental problem, the practice of politics in our country/state/county/city/neighborhood has become more mud-slinging and personal attack than addressing the real and legitimate issues. We are misreading our moral compasses and following bogus compass points. Dang, I don't doubt a good part of this community wouldn't chase after some prurient interest story about - pick any - member of the current (or past) CSD as grounds to disparage any sewer strategy. What does one have to do with the other? As long as their actions don't impinge on a Brown Act violation, or illegal or gross fiscal mismanagement (still to be determined), or personal gain from the process, or any other closely related sewer issue why should their personal lives be called out and into public discussion? Do you work in a corporate environment? Computers and emails are yesteryear's telephones. Almost any corporate environment in which employees work at computers allow a little slack. Who reading this blog doesn't relate to this? Damn, I daresay some of you are reading it on the company clock right now. Go straight to hell won't you? I'm gonna report you to your boss! I'm a computer sophisticate and I know who you are. Be afraid, Be very afraid. Your livelihood hangs in the balance. Now how do you feel?

Sewertoons, I look forward to hearing your response. Any others too.

Now, lets get back to the issues of water, water pollution, clean water, designing a sewer solution that addresses our needs, state regulatory agencies, sewer financing, CSD bankruptcy and all the rest of the really important stuff. I really, really, really don't want to hear Gordon's silly sick-ass squeaks anymore.

Sorry, had to say that. Please forgive me.

PublicWorks said...

Well said PG

Enough with this bogus piety. While one can understand some of Gordon's frustration, as he had to put up with a bunch of innuendo thrown his way, it just doesn't justify trying to trash someone's career.

Snowy Plover said...

or else what, anon? Another angry recall suppoerter here who suspects, Blakslee, A GOP junior assemblyman from a backwater countywho maybe is trying his hand at grand standing. This thing smells wrong. I Don't trust the county AT ALL. The senile Ms. Bianchi called us "fighting dogs that needed a hosing down" in front of hearing of SENATORS IN SACRAMENTO.
OUR REPRESENTATIVE!! Went over well too, I hear. Like dead silence from the gallery. Yep, just hand it over to the county, goddam haven't they always taken such goood care of US. AS far as Blakslee goes, he can back Al Barrow off ( A little bit) but can he bring HIS governor to the table. How many time as Ahnald been to SLO county since the mighty plan was proposed?? How many times did he bother to stop by Osos & ask the $165 million dollar question?
It IS about Real Estate and nothing else.
The "science" is bullshit. The Policy is Bullshit.
The Tribune is Bullshit. Gordon Hensley is Bull Shit. Pandora is Bullshit. Al Barrow is Bullshit.
Shark Inlet is Bullshit. LAFCO bullshit. Taxpayer's Watch is Bullshit. Shelling this LOCSD from all sides is Bullshit. TriW is Bullshit. Calling this mess all about Sept. 2005 is Bullshit.
Downplaying a successful recall election is bullshit. Writing letters and e-mails to the Regional Board asking to punish Los Osos is BULLSHIT. If you sent such an e-mail and you happen to be a successful REAL ESTATE broker IN Los Osos, then you eat bullshit.
November looms large. We are at War. Gas is headed to $4 a gallon. Yet here we are caught in even yet more
Bullshit.

Anonymous said...

Nowhere is it documented that Gordon Hensley called or wrote to CalTrans about the CSD employees. On the tribune blog, there are those that urged this and encouraged this but none claimed to be Gordon!

As for Snowy Plover, you seemed to be very frustrated. The only none pro recall person you castigated was AL Barrow yet find no fault with the contribution of the current CSD?

What is your solution Plover, just add more bullshit?

Sewertoons said...

pg-13

Whoa! Stand back, take a deep breath and look again with a "soft" eye. Could be you are reading a bit more into this than what I wrote!

I am saying "we - maybe ME, might try whatever is at hand (and legal, I might add here), to try and stop what is going on - that is what I -- SURMISE, GUESS AT, SIDEWALK PSYCHOANALYZE ABOUT -- what Gordon was doing. I don't think to rationalize was my intent here.

(As an off-topic note, you might also know that as residents of California, we PAY the salaries of the Caltrans employees, so I am not so sure the word "unethical" works here. Although there are always some who will support any side of a debate.)

I'm then guessing that the President of the U.S. should not be subject to scrutiny where PERSONAL issues are concerned, or is the measure of what is done on a national level too tough for the likes of a lowly CSD board? I am speaking generally here of ethics. This is just a question, not my opinion.

As for mud slinging, just when was it any different? Read any American history lately? I wish we did decide things based on the issues, but that is just not reality.

I believe we all try very hard to address the real issues, but where has that gotten us? The Grand Jury can't even seem to get any action on their request for investigation ("…illegal or gross fiscal mismanagement [still to be determined]…"). How much better are WE doing? We aren't.

As for livelihood, what is the board doing to ensure we on the retired end won't have to go back to work to pay for the sewer? Why is "their idea" for a sewer so precious and important that they are willing to take the CSD into bankruptcy to do it - how is this fulfilling a civic duty? To say that they didn't know would be pitiful. No one yet has shown us how the "newer, better sewer" will be any cheaper. I'll believe THAT when I see it, IF I see it. And I am only LIKELY to see it if Blakeslee's plan WORKS.

I have worked in an environment where my phone calls and e-mails and desk could be gone into at any time. I have seen employees leave or be reprimanded or demoted with the creative and appropriate "corporate spin" applied to the action. We on the inside knew it was really drugs, or poor work habits, or liberating company funds. I'm sure Caltrans told us what it wanted us to hear, true or not. Guess I am just a bit jaded and mistrustful.

"I really, really, really don't want to hear Gordon's silly sick-ass squeaks anymore." I trust you are asking the forgiveness of Gordon?

Sewertoons said...

So Snowy Plover, who DO you trust? How IS this bullshit sewer going to be built???? Or do you think we don't need one?

Anonymous said...

SNOWY PLOVER! Heartily agree with all that you have said. For a small town, there sure are a lot of assholes which means lots of bullshit.

Anonymous said...

Yes, anon, many of us in town have noticed that about the CSD and the interminable - I mean interim - General Manager.

*PG-13 said...

Sewertoons> Could be you are reading a bit more into this than what I wrote! I am saying "we - maybe ME, might try whatever is at hand (and legal, I might add here), to try and stop what is going on - that is what I -- SURMISE, GUESS AT, SIDEWALK PSYCHOANALYZE ABOUT -- what Gordon was doing. I don't think to rationalize was my intent here.

Cool. No insult or attack intended. You're right this is a button for me.

Let me try what you suggest. I'm standing back, taking a few slow deeeeeep breaths and looking at the whole thing again - trying to be as soft-eyed and peaceful and loving as I can. And ya know, I still don't see anything but rationalization for an albeit legal but still decidedly improper thing to do. Granted, there is nothing illegal about ratting to an employer that somebody I disagree with politically might be using company computers to read & send non-business email. I can easily understand and empathize with Gordon's frustration. He has taken a lot of heat and public abuse (it comes with the job) and the desire to retaliate, get even and further his cause is only human. Heck, who isn't frustrated about damn near everything about this sewer and these internecine sewer wars. Who doesn't feel strongly about the strategies, the decisions, the people, the accounting, ... Some second guessing, name calling and mud slinging is to be expected. But it is important to realize when we have stepped over a line. And to rationalize Gordon's behavior when he crossed an ethical line is to defend it. So I guess it comes down to where you draw your lines. For me if the issues are political the engagement should be on the field of politics. (more about that later.) I think things not related to the political discussion should be out of play. Ron was previously called out, as he should have been, for an oblique reference to somebody's body size. He later clarified he was making a psychological reference, one that has been made here and elsewhere before, and not a body size slam. Still it was close enough to warrant some censor, cool. (Curious how psychological insults are commonly accepted while body size is still off limits - especially for women. Uh oh, did I say that?) Please tell me how in this case anybody's use of their company computer relates to our sewer issues? Other than to just add more garbage to the drama.

Sewertoons> ... you might also know that as residents of California, we PAY the salaries of the Caltrans employees, so I am not so sure the word "unethical" works here.

It's a stretch but I almost agree with you here. The fact they work at Caltrans means their performance may be open to more public scrutiny than if they worked at a private company. Still, perhaps even more so, a government employer must publish employee performance standards and manage their employees accordingly. The public can call out suspected indiscretions and management should respond. Which in this case they did. The ethics in this case are based more on why the employees were reported than about the indiscretions. Does anybody have the slightest question that Gordon was concerned about inappropriate use of government computers? Get real. Just because public employees CAN be called out doesn't mean it should be done capriciously or for personal gain. Gordon's actions were clearly political, retributive and for personal gain.

Let's bring it home again. Many of us use computers at work and I'll bet 99.99% of us have used our computers to read or send a private email or to view a web page not directly related to our jobs. How much we do that is a function of what is allowed in that work environment and our personal work habits. If we abuse the privilege we expect to be called out by our management. That's an internal issue. If somebody who disagrees with my politics calls my manager to squeal on me I consider that person a rat. Ya better have some real substance if you're going to attack my livelihood. Rumor is not substance. Anything less than some solid proof supporting your accusations means you're a whining rat deserving of being recognized as such. In this case, based on the information I've read, it sounds like Gordon Hensley did just that. If he didn't, if he had substantial proof supporting his accusations or if he never actually made the accusations then I am misinformed and I owe him an apology.

Sewertoons> I'm then guessing that the President of the U.S. should not be subject to scrutiny where PERSONAL issues are concerned, or is the measure of what is done on a national level too tough for the likes of a lowly CSD board? I am speaking generally here of ethics. This is just a question, not my opinion.

Ah yes, how did I think it wouldn't eventually come down to this. Where do the personal lives of our leaders intersect with their job performance. The edges get pretty fuzzy in this discussion and we're not gonna resolve it here. This is a highly opinionated and volatile topic largely because our presidential politics have become so weird. At some point along the political spectrum I think substance should supercede rumor and slander. I know. I am very very naive. Apparently I'm too dumb to understand the intricacies of american politics. But why should I care about the family life or sexual orientation of somebody designing my sewer? Yes, I believe ethics and prior performance is important anywhere along the spectrum. I expect some fundamental ethical standard to be upheld. If they've proven themselves of questionable ethical standards I will hold that against them. Both boards have made lots of questionable decisions and done lots of marginally ethical, oh just make that unethical, things. There is so much substantial abuse here that I do not consider unsubstantiated claims that somebody on the CSD used a company computer to send a few emails fair grounds to question their ethics. Rather I consider that grounds to question the ethics of the one making the claims.

Nuff said.

Anonymous said...

This particular set of postings has detoured to the minutia of Gordon Hensley's alledged attacking the use of state computers, and on the job time.

Where (I repeat from an earlier post) is any documentation that these allegations against Hensley are even true?

I trust many of you follow the Trib blogs from time to time, and noticed that the thrust was about the weeks and weeks of Schicker not being at work but at some BOS, LAFCO, CCRWB, and miscellaneous other hearins for days at a time. I believe as tax payers, there is a legitmate question regarding to be raised as to how both can be handled in the same work day?

As for Ron's slam at Gordon's height, I think the poster was refering to the equating of height to a psychological complex, e.g. all short people must be aggressive? There are no mellow short people or agressive average or tall people?

It would seem to me that a person's documented actions should be questioned not their physical characteristics or undocumented allegations!

One more bird do do to add to the flow of this blog!

Anonymous said...

PG:
I hear ya loud and clear. But all this nonsense is still not building us a sewer. There's enough nastiness in this town that I wonder if the air is more polluted than the water. Joey Racano, who just gleefully warned us all of his return to Los Osos in a letter printed on the TT blog, is the face of this CSD. Keith Swanson is the face of this CSD. So's Gail McPherson and Al Barrow. Enough said. More than enough on both sides to keep those that love drama and dirty deeds quite happy. But it's all still NOT building us a sewer. And it never will. Not in the hands of Los Osos. "Principles over personalities" just never gonna work in this fine community.

Spectator said...

ALL:
I am still trying to recover from the "above the fold" bankruptcy discussion and graphic in Sunday's Tribune. And now on the Tribune Discussion groups is an updated cash flow analysis from Richard. Everyone should read the analysis and come to their own conclusions.

While there is a discussion here on Ann's blog about ethics of cleaning up an ugly rumor about time by the board being spent at work on LOCSD business (Theft of time), it appears that they were only slightly guilty according to The Bay News. Hopefully we can put this behind us.

But now if you look to the Tribune discussions (blogs), jail and individual fines are being demanded for the LOCSD BOARD. This has been going on for months.

Now, due to the Tribune story, the whole county, state, and perhaps many in the nation are more than aware of the LOCSD board's actions of fiscal irresponsibility. Los Osos and the LOCSD board is being discussed by all savy representatives in our state government. It is probably being discussed in the environmental departments of the Federal Government.

Some local judges, maybe state judges, appeal judges, and those in county and state prosecuitorial offices are looking up the meaning of "due dilligence".

Some annonymous bloggers here, with an obvious overdose of "smart pills" don't even bother to sneeze. Other bloggers have replied in kind. Bad form, bad language: shame. By the way, a schmuck is a penis.

To PG 13: You bring up the question of ethics in making an enquiry as to the ethics of public employees. I say that public employees need to be held to high standards. There is nothing non ethical in members of the public, who pay the bills, making enquiries as to the ethics of public employees.

And now PG 13, you worry about the Board members possibly losing their jobs because a bunch "ratted them out" by making enquiries. Or that Gordon Hensley and TPW was looking for Brown act violations. This is part of "due dilligence".

One is either for enforcement of the law, or an outlaw. One is either for open government, or against it. Your opinions agree only with a very small minority of outlaws in our society.

Start thinking about "due dilligence". This is a standard that all government MUST be held to. Without this standard we are SLAVES to government.

Ron said...

PG-13, I enjoy your posts.

You said:"Ron was previously called out, as he should have been, for an oblique reference to somebody's body size. He later clarified he was making a psychological reference..."

I know it sounds mean, but there is no malice whatsoever in that take. The correlation is damn near perfect, and it simply can not be ignored.

That link I supplied above says:

""Compensatory behavior exhibited by those with a Napoleon complex may also include being overly aggressive or argumentative and a need to over-achieve, which all serve to give the person a sense of greater self worth."

The two most "overly aggressive, argumentative and over-achievers" I know are Gordon Hensley and Pandora Nash-Karner... especially, Nash-Karner.

Overly Aggressive?
She developed and employed a strategy to have the RWQCB fine Los Osos residents. It worked.

Argumentative?
From 1994 - Present: Nothing but.

Over-achiever? Check out her resume:
- Los Osos Community Advisory Council: 1994
- The Vision Team: 1994-95
- The Vision Statement: 1995
- South Bay Community Pool Association: 1997
- The Solution Group (marketing director and co-founder with her Husband Gary Karner): 1997 - 1998
- LOCSD Board Director (number one vote-getter): 1999 - 2001
- SLO County Parks Commissioner: 1999 - present (appointed by Supervisor Shirley Bianchi)
- Save the Dream (marketing director): 2005
- Taxpayer's Watch: 2005 - present (in a kinda-sorta, shakey, behind-the-scenes way)
- Los Osos Community Pool Association: Present

... and many more.

Think about that. Does anyone know anybody that is that involved in civic matters in their community?

I know a lot of people that are civically active, and I don't know one that even comes close to Nash-Karner's over-achieving ways.

I can see how me bringing up "Napoleon Complex" sounds spiteful, but it isn't (in all honesty, I don't even know Hensley or Nash-Karner. They could be swell people for all I know, but I do find they the way they go about their business despicable). It's just an observation. However, if you step back, and examine everything that's happened since 1994, when the masthead for LOCAC was the home address of the Karners, it's not too hard to make the argument that Los Osos has been nothing but a victim of "Napoleon Complex."

Which, leads me to my next point........... You know what I've been pondering lately? For me -- and this is kind of interesting -- there is no doubt about it, this story has turned.

The real, great, gripping, compelling story in Los Osos -- the one that everyone outside of Los Osos finds absolutely fascinating -- has little to do with a sewer, and everything to do with one -- that's right, I said, one -- over-achieving woman, with an over-the-top interest in local civic matters, an obsession for public parks, aggressive and unscrupulous marketing tactics, that incessantly schmoozes with the media, and knows how to pop things out of a word processor.

Trust me Los Osos, you guys might not see it, because you're saturated in the details of getting yourself out of your mess, but what Nash-Karner has done (and continues to do, by the way) in Los Osos over the last 13 years is so interesting, and it makes a great story. In my opinion, the best story in the history of SLO County.

Axe-grinding on my part? Not at all.

Vindictive? Give me a break. Why?

Nope. None of the above. I have nothing against her at all. The reason I focus on Nash-Karner's actions over the past 13 years is because that is the epic, and amazing part of the Los Osos sewer story, and the local media won't, or can't, touch it. Sucks for them.

LO, do what you need to do to dig out of your mess (I'm all for a solution), but I still have a few more dots to connect on how you got here, and I'm looking forward to connecting them.

Spectator said...

To RON:

As to Pandora: Write a book, make it a best seller! Then send the money to the LOCSD!

At the same time I would like to see a resume of YOUR political and community involvement. It seems to me that you are dancing to the strains of Newman's "Short People".

You should have let this go, your defense keeps dragging you in deeper, but I have enjoyed your scramble. (Brains and eggs!)

Anonymous said...

Connect away Ron. I'm sure you'll find Nash Karner was also responsible for the Kennedy assassination; The Johnstown Flood; black holes; the national deficet; World Wars I and II; gout; Third World starvation; and disco music. Look up the word "obsession" and see maybe it it strikes a chord. Meanwhile, we have a sewer to build here in Los Osos (of which you're not a part of).

Anonymous said...

let's see.........

what's worse?

Gordon doing private business for personal gain on the public's time? Or, Lisa doing the public's business for the public's gain on public time?

*PG-13 said...

I agree with the some of the other's. Enough is enough. I did my wail. As I too with a more sensible head have said before, this isn't solving the problem. So I gratefully steer back out of the weeds and try to get back on a tighter focus.

BUT, one last little comment in response to points Spectator and Sewertoons make: My issue isn't with anybody making enquiries about government workers. I said that was fair territory. It is ethical when done for the right reasons. And it can be unethical when done for the wrong reasons. What were the reasons here? There was very little 'due' in this 'dilligence' but there was a lot of payback.

> Bad form, bad language: shame. By the way, a schmuck is a penis.

Sorry, I forgot about that particular use of the word. What I meant was more like this :

Schmuck, a Yiddish word, has a range of meaning depending on context. In its most innocuous use, a schmuck is a person who does a stupid thing, in which case “dumb schmuck” is the appropriate expression. A schmuck's behavior ranges from pesky and inconsiderate, to obnoxious and manipulative. A schmuck's personality type ranges from jerk to bastard.

Schmucky behavior also falls within a range of intentionality. Some schmucks carefully plan their bad behavior, some only a little, and some not at all. For example, the bastard may spend considerable time planning his bad deeds. In contrast, the dumb schmuck and the pesky behave badly without any forethought.


Chose whichever definition or adjective set that works best for you.

*PG-13 said...

PS - I should have also added, for those who really want to get deep into schmuckology there's lots of other cool schmuck related stuff elsewhere on the Schmuck U website .

Enjoy .....

Anonymous said...

*pg-13, your a joy to read!

Sewertoons said...

One of the anons said:

"what's worse?

Gordon doing private business for personal gain on the public's time? Or, Lisa doing the public's business for the public's gain on public time?"

You've got to be kiding!! Being pivotal in putting the town of Los Osos into bankruptcy is public GAIN???? Being in the financial hole is GAIN?? What planet do you hail from?

Note: Caltrans business is NOT Los Osos business.

PublicWorks said...

"what's worse?

Gordon doing private business for personal gain on the public's time? Or, Lisa doing the public's business for the public's gain on public time? "

Gordon doing Lisa for personal gain on public time, and it's none of anyone's business.

Sheesh -

What is the plan if the CSD goes Chapter 9? How will they be able to do a project? Who will pay? What is the delay? What happens to the PZ homeowners who have nothing being done for them to comply in the meantime? What is the PLAN?? It's been 9 months.

Legislation is a plan, so who likes it, who doesn't, but it is a PLAN.

PublicWorks said...

Clinton sez,

"I did not have sex with that women"

Good answer, any schmuck that asks a question about someone's personal life deserves to be lied to, IMO, even if it's of the president.

Now, he could have said, "none of your damn business", but that would not be politically correct.

And this is a non-Clinton fan.

*PG-13 said...

Ron > Trust me Los Osos, you guys might not see it, because you're saturated in the details of getting yourself out of your mess, but what Nash-Karner has done (and continues to do, by the way) in Los Osos over the last 13 years is so interesting, and it makes a great story. ... The reason I focus on Nash-Karner's actions over the past 13 years is because that is the epic, and amazing part of the Los Osos sewer story,

Anon > I'm sure you'll find Nash Karner was also responsible for the Kennedy assassination; The Johnstown Flood; black holes; the national deficet; World Wars I and II; gout; Third World starvation; and disco music.

Oh Gawd! Oh no!!! This can't be!
Before this goes one step further and gets blown all out proportion I gotta say right now, categorically, despite what Ron might turn up .... there is absolutely no association whatsoever between *PG-13 and Pandora/Gary/Gordon/13 years. No. None. Not even close. That is a pure and cruel accident of chance. A result no doubt of me tooling around with the Improbability Drive.

Nor will you find me anywhere in the Zagruder film, on Nixon's tapes (known or missing) or on the payroll of any covert US intelligence agencies. I can't even remember the last time I was called to White House. There is absolutely no connection between me and anyone or anything else in the universe. Believe me. Please.

Anonymous said...

PG...
Gawd that's hilarious! I was in no way implicating you in Ron's wild goose chases. But now that you mentioned all this, I guess we'll just have to keep our eyes on you too. (You sure you're not the guy holding the umbrella in the Zapruda film???!!!)

Anonymous said...

To puiblicworks:

"Gordon DOING Lisa on public time"

Now that is one strong image to conjure up! Now how do you think this would be possible (position I mean)?

It is going to take me a couple of days to get over this one. Every time I see her at meetings...............FLASH!

Ron said...

As Ann would say, "My, my, my, what a clever cast of characters we have gathered around the old pot-bellied stove."

You guys are funny.

Spectator said:

"As to Pandora: Write a book, make it a best seller! Then send the money to the LOCSD!"

I'm thinkin' movie... Kathy Bates in the lead role as PN-K. Whadaya think?

"At the same time I would like to see a resume of YOUR political and community involvement."

Let's see... well, there's this, and... oh yea, a few years back, I single-handedly got jet-skis banned from my favorite beach -- Old Port Beach. That's my sweetest political victory to date, and now, every time I go there and hear nothing but waves crashing, I smile. See? I certainly can't be accused of over-achieving.

"You should have let this go, your defense keeps dragging you in deeper..."

But no one seems to be arguing it away.

..."but I have enjoyed your scramble. (Brains and eggs!)"

Funny.

An Anon said:

"Meanwhile, we have a sewer to build here in Los Osos..."

Yep. You sure do.

I'm starting to see a fork in the road -- the "Los Osos Story" goes one way, and the "Los Osos Solution" goes another. Ann's blog is excellent for the latter. If y'all don't mind, and I know a few of you do, I'm going to keep my blog focused on the former, because it's a great story.

The current state of non-stop bickering of "cash flow analysis," and "who used what computers when," and all the other juvenile in-fighting that LO engages in bores the hell out of me.

Boy, do I miss the days of non-existent community values, state-funded amphitheaters in sewer plants, baseless claims of "better, cheaper, faster," and, of course, "bait-and-switchy." Ahhhhh... that's when this story was good... really good.

Sorry to bring the "story turning" subject around your blog, Ann. I'll start that thread on SewerWatch when I get a chance.

Shark Inlet said...

So Ron is bored with the current story, doesn't want to spend the time looking into important issues related to money and math and wants to keep focused on the past. No surprise. Quite a reasonable choice and certainly one that many of us had predicted.

However, let us not pretend that Ron and his blog have any bearing on current issues in any way aside from the times he gets his nose bent out of shape by Pandora appearing in the news and feels the need to skewer her again.

Maybe Ron should change the name of his blog from sewerwatch to "The Los Osos Sewer Wars, 1997-2004". At least that would be accurate.

Anonymous said...

Hi Sharkinlet,

I agree that Ron's blog fails to have any relevancy to today's issues. Sad. He seems to be stuck in a time warp; repeating the same story again and again and again.

Also odd to me is that we have not seen a single blog from Ann, Ron, PG-13, et al regarding Sunday's in-depth Tribune story by Abraham Hyatt on municipal bankruptcy and the LOCSD's finances. Last week Ann placed four bog stories on this page....two in one day. Seems to me that the blogs were all about discrediting my cash flow analysis of CSD finances; and Lisa's "shame and blame" open letter. Lisa's comments were much different in the Tribune story though. She acknowledged that bankruptcy is likely; and must now sees that my numbers are reality-based and correct.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Shark Inlet said...

But Ron's story is an interesting one and it is oddly compelling. Don't know exactly about the veracity, though, because he really seems to have an axe to grind with Pandora and he really seems to overlook some of the odd things his buddy Julie has done over the years. Oh well.

I suspect that Ann is under the weather or on vacation. Otherwise she would like have given us the LOCSD board spin on the article in the paper.


On another topic, I have just finished looking over the technical report from Ripley, in particular, the site selection analysis (now available on the LOCSD website).

Using the same indices as Sheikh, but using the ranks (adjusted for ties) instead of the raw scores, having also corrected for errors or erroneous assumptions (like the TriW site being rated as less accessible to heavy machinery than Gorby and like assuming we will be doing 100% ag-exchange) and down-weighting the characteristics which all seem to measure out-of-town-ness and little else (wind, proximity to neighbors, distance to storage, etc.) I got TriW as being superior to all other sites.

This is even without including any sort of cost estimates. Had actual cost estimates like design costs and delay related inflation costs had been included in the analysis (and they were not), the balance would have swung even further toward TriW from Giacomazzi.

I’m not an engineer, but Sheikh’s conclusions are HIGHLY sensitive to initial assumptions which haven’t been justified, the measurement scale used, the choice of site characteristics evaluated and the weightings used.

Simply put, no one site dominates any other and to think that Giacomazzi has been shown to be the best site is to have simply believed the presuppositions of the current LOCSD board and Ripley. Different reasonable people would reach considerably different reasonable conclusions from the same data.

Rephrase: if Lisa tells us that TriW is the worst and that the Ripley study has shown this I'll barf because the study seemed almost designed to emphasize the worst in TriW and to ignore the drawbacks of the other sites.

Sewertoons said...

shark - me and I'll bet some others will join you barfing - personally I'll stick my neck out and projectile vomit - in the direction you all can guess - at the inevitable conclusion as to the "preferred site," the one that I'm sure is the ONE on the closed session weekly agendas as to "purchase negotiations" - Giacomazzi.

Thank you for your rational assessment of the report, too.

PublicWorks said...

Options:

1) CSD re-starts project. Contract disputes likely go away, fines go away (or in abeyance). The legal issues still could be very cloudy, given previous actions. Insovency still a concern. 218 vote needed.

2) Legislation. County takes over for. Contracts cannot be assumed (they are not a liability). Re-bidding one option, value engineering utilizing all reports (including Ripley's) an option. And there is a process to fund a project to completion. What's left of CSD still faces insolvency.

3) CSD resolves to transfer project to County - pretty much the same as above, only quicker - why is this never discussed at all, given the pending legislation? Insolvency still an issue after transfer.

4) Dissolution. Has anyone really ever explained clearly a time-line for what would happen and when the heck any project progress would start?

5) Insolvency. Unknown, no time-line for anything getting done anytime.

6) Bankruptcy. Yet to be clearly explained how and when this would get a project done.

7) Anarchy.

So,....

Anonymous said...

PW:
I'd invert your post and opine that anarchy has been at the top of this list for years, and all else follows.

Anonymous said...

sewertoons said...."You've got to be kiding!! Being pivotal in putting the town of Los Osos into bankruptcy is public GAIN???? Being in the financial hole is GAIN?? What planet do you hail from?"


i hail from planet Los Osos. And, apparently, you seem still seem to living in some sort of dream world. wake up. wake up! when the County get control and sees that the Ripley Project makes more sense and is CHEAPER!!!!!!!! Guess what they are going to do? I don't trust the County but, they are not stupid.
I have complete faith in the process and the dreamers are in for a rude awakening.....neener, neener, neener......
it was the former recalled in disgrace CSD board that banrupted the Los Osos CSD by starting a wastewater projcet without the public's concent. the former assholes that you support, knew the community didn't support their nightmare middle of town sludge factory. so, what did they do? they try and ramrod the thing into town before getting thrown out of office.....emptying the coffers, spending money from miscellaneous accounts in advance of an illegal SRF loan(no 218 vote) for a project the community never wanted and rejected. All Lisa has done, is run damage control on the former recalled asshole's scorched earth policy of running the CSD into the ground before we tossed their ass out onto the street. I heard Stan's ass got tossed all the way to Nebraska. Unfortunately, Gordon decided to stay and throw a tantrum and beg for fines against the citizens that voted him out of office. what a coward......what a little bitch he is. remember when Gray Davis was recalled? he shook hands with Arnold and said he would help with the transistion in anyway possible. did he do this because he thought Arnold was the better man or had better policy? no way. he did it because the people of the state of california had spoken. he did it out of respect for the people. he took the high road and set aside his personal opinion for the will of the people. this is what men of honor do. So, what does Gordon Hensly do? After beening recalled, Gordon asks, no begs, the state to fine his neighbors and fellow citizens and circulates a petition to dissolve the very government that he was once apart of because his neighbors and fellow Citizens removed him from office(WHAAAAAAAAAAAA, baby want his bottle?). then, he goes on a personal and foundless attack(reported foundless by your bay news and clatrans) on the citizen representatives that the community voted to replace him. Gordon Hensley is a worm. he doesn't suffer from a Napoleon complex. he suffers from a 3 year old "someone took my toy away and i'm going to throw a tantrum" complex.
Pandora & Gordon can't stand losing. they don't give a shit about the people of los osos. they hate you all. they want to drive you outahere...they hate you because you rejected them and their really, really bad ideas........
i'm agnostic but, if there is a hell, i'm sure there is a very special place of eternal torment and damnation reserved for Gordon & Pandora.
Have a nice day. :)

Anonymous said...

Unbelievable. What grade are you in?

Anonymous said...

nice challenge. nice comeback. guess everything i said was true.
what grade am i in?
is that you Gordon?
Sorry, I'm too old for you.
I know you like little boys.

Sewertoons said...

anon, of the "sewertoons said…" and "nice challenge," all of your puerile accusations of Gordon fit you to a T.

Anonymous said...

To the last anon (3:39):

Reading your bile made my blood boil. But then I would become like you, irrational and irrelevant.

You are now accusing Hensley of being a pedophile. Do you have any concept of what your saying?

Do you have any knowledge of libel law? You can be identified, as Ann has previously written, as all it takes is a court order.

If I were you, I would immediately stop posting, change my internet provider, stay low, and hope that
legal action is not initiated against you!

Anonymous said...

I surmise that this could only come from the "penis in a suit" (AKA Joey) or Julie Tacker (AKA franc3 on the Tribune blogs). They eat "smart pills", have bad breath, and throw "floaters".

These are the kind of people that have thrown the LOCSD into insolvency through their idiocy.

The time will come when we will throw them out of town.

Anonymous said...

To the last anon (5:10):

Reading your bile made my blood boil. But then I would become like you, irrational and irrelevant.

You are now accusing Joey of being a penis. Do you have any concept of what your saying?

Do you have penis envy?

Do you have any knowledge of libel law? You can be identified, as Ann has previously written, as all it takes is a court order.

If I were you, I would immediately stop posting, change my internet provider, stay low, and hope that
legal action is not initiated against you!

Anonymous said...

Bring it on asshole: Fuck you!

Anonymous said...

I believe saying someone "looks like a penis" does not carry the same legal consequences as publicly accusing someone of being a child molester, but I could be wrong.

Of course, unless you went to another computer in another location you are leaving the same IP addresse, just making it easier.

Have a great day!

Anonymous said...

well, since at least 4 people i know not including who else knows who has access to this ip address, i guess one of us is just going to have to confess. HA. by the way, i did not accuse Gordon of being a pedophile. i stated that anon(3:39 he/she/anon)liked little boys. it was a wise crack. you're the one that seems to be claiming that Gordon is a pedophile. do you know something we don't? perhaps Gordon should be suing you.
Have a nice day!:)

Anonymous said...

The unfortunate thing about libel suits is that they are civil, and monitary damages have to be proven. In order to sue someone for libel, you need to hire an attorney, and they do not hire without a retainer, usually $3000 or so. If you lose the libel case, you are resonsible for defense attorney fees, and possibly damages. Libel and perjury are very difficult to prove. Perjury occurs every day in the courts, is rampant in divorce cases, and even lawyers lie like hell. Nobody get prosecuted for perjury, and this is the reason why our justice system is failing badly. People should be held accountable, but they are not!

This is one of the things that has contributed to the violence in our society. The punishment never equals the damage of the crime. If you are victim, you have to sue for damages, and if the criminal has no money, property, etc. you are wasting your time.

There is a big difference in saying someone likes little boys and girls and saying that they are a pedophile. Many of us have grandchildren who we not only like, but love. So the idiot who's blood boiled deserves just that.

Now Joey Racano is a public figure, and can be subject to all sorts of vile and obscene comments as long as one does not accuse him of a criminal action. He has no recourse. At the same time he can throw comments that public figures are corrupt and get away with it.

But if someone said that "Julie Tacker and Lisa Schicker are fat, ugly, and airheads", the girls would have a hard libel case to prove in light of their actions and appearance. But why? They are what they are.

PublicWorks said...

Due Diligence:

Due diligence (also known as due care) is the effort made by an ordinarily prudent or reasonable party to avoid harm to another party or himself. Failure to make this effort is considered negligence. Quite often a contract will specify that a party is required to provide due diligence.

A (U.S.) example of a "due diligence report" is a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), which is performed to determine potential environmental conditions that may cause harm to the surrounding environment.

In criminal law, due diligence is the only available defense to a crime that is one of strict liability (i.e. a crime that only requires an actus reus and no mens rea). Once the criminal offence is proven, the defendant must prove on the balance of probabilities that they did everything possible to prevent the act from happening. It is not enough that they took the normal standard of care in their industry - they must show that they took every reasonable precaution.


Due Diligence: can also be an entry in the accounting books column for services performed by Mr. Diligence.

*PG-13 said...

I'm traveling and am now sucking at the slow end of an amazingly thin dial-up straw while sitting at a funky desk in some non-descript motel room typing on a recalcitrant keyboard with a mind of its own. Which makes all of this even more painful. More painful than you can imagine. Truly painful. I don't even want to go back and cut & paste in response... even if I could. Where would I begin? Or end? It seems to go on forever. So let me touch on just a few.

Anon> Also odd to me is that we have not seen a single blog from Ann, Ron, PG-13, et al regarding Sunday's in-depth Tribune story ...

Kinda odd to me too. Did I say I'm out of town and not reading any of the local rags? Imagine being reduced to this blog - and this thread in particular - as your only tenuous attachment to all things sewer. And now you know the basis of my pain. You do entice me to expend a little effort to see if I can't find The Trivial story online.

Ann, Ron, PG-13, et al
Really? I'm both hurt and stoked. Hurt because I think of myself as more centrist than not in this great brouhaha. Apparently I've lost my marginal claim to the middleground. Boy, one lowsy rant and your rep is ruined. < sigh > Stoked because I only recently came out of the closet - I was a lurker for over a year and only recently began posting as *PG-13 - and now I'm being associated with Ann, and Ron, and et al! I mean, is this a great country or what?!

And then we step off into the deep murky waters ...... I shan't even try to attribute as most of it is nameless faceless anonymity.

> All Lisa has done, is run damage control on the former recalled asshole's scorched earth policy of running the CSD into the ground before we tossed their ass out onto the street. I heard Stan's ass got tossed all the way to Nebraska.

> ... if there is a hell, i'm sure there is a very special place of eternal torment and damnation reserved for Gordon & Pandora.

> Sorry, I'm too old for you. I know you like little boys.

> I surmise that this could only come from the "penis in a suit"

> Do you have penis envy?

> Bring it on asshole: Fuck you!

> I believe saying someone "looks like a penis" does not carry the same legal consequences as publicly accusing someone of being a child molester, but ...

> ... what a coward......what a little bitch he is.


Many of which end with a beautiful and caring sign-off such as:

> Have agreat day!
> Have a nice day!:)

Oh gawd!

Spectator, I am sooooo sorry. I had no idea unleashing 'schmuck' could be so devastatingly powerful. Obviously some words have more power than others. And some words, once unleashed, can rampage and create utter chaos. Schmuck is a powerful word I think. Kinda like an ancient druidic chant, say it a few times and it's essence is unleashed. Please folks, please go back and read what a schmuck is. Then consider.

Although, truth be told, I really like:

> .....neener, neener, neener......

This is always useful.

Anonymous said...

Ann, Ann, Ann. I am surprised that you would be regurgitating such old rumors as the one about Gordon.

Although there was a big stink made by the "Move the Sewer" people, as Bleskey and his own staff proved, Gordon did not use any CSD funds for ANY purpose from June 2004-September 30, 2005. AT ALL. In fact, when he was on his own business, if it was possible, he included some CSD business, AT HIS OWN EXPENSE. But of course, that was conveniently forgotten. I suggest you ask the AP clerk at the CSD office, she did the research. Find out for yourself, and put a stop to all this rehash of lies, lies, lies.

Additionally, those pool funds had **originated** with the County of San Luis Obispo, and are now warehoused in some vague LAIF auxilliary account, that could (will) be silently passed back to the General Operating Account, probably to pay for more attorney dinners, or the Wall Street Journal for WRA & Associates (The upstairs contract guys.) Or, for more smokes for Bleskey, as if he needed any more.

Get a life, Ann. There is no way you can continue to defend the machinations of this stupid group, no matter how much "spin" you put on it.

Anonymous said...

Yup, I agree with Anon 4:00 above. The hired folks are really milking us. Our elected board members , I believe, all have the best intentions but are very very bad at management. I'm afraid it's too late for them to save themselves. A shame, because they really do want the best water plan for us. What a waste of time, effort, and $$$. Blesky and Biggs can go to ___ for all I care.

not afraid to be nobody said...

I want to thank the Bay News for it’s courageous printing of my critical letter.
Now, “ON GUARD”...........

Let’s see if they print this...............

To The Bay News
A letter to the Editor
by Michael Jones, Los Osos

First, I would like to thank the Bay News for printing my letter that was critical of their rumor based reporting. Reputable and newsworthy organizations do not fear criticism. They engage it.

Neil Farrell responded with the following Editor’s note:

“Tabloid newspapers make things up or distort the truth, and then print it as fact. We sought to do the opposite, to ascertain truth from the numerous rumors that have been spreading through the community. We vowed to do a story regardless of whether our investigation found serious wrongdoing, something many newspapers will not do. We believe and still do believe the CSD board members deserved to have the truth be told.”

Funny, I live in this community and I was unaware of these “rumors” until the Bay News decided to write an article about them.

I really know nothing of Jack Beardwood. He’s approached me twice for comment (once at a CSD meeting and once at the CDO hearing). This is all I know of Jack Beardwood. So, hypothetically and for the sake of argument, let’s say there were numerous rumors milling about town that Jack Beardwood was a drunk and an alcoholic. Most reporters are...(kidding). I'm guessing Mr. Farrell, based on your journalistic standards, that the Bay News would run a complete and full investigation on this rumor. Then, write an article either condemning or exonerating Mr. Beardwood of allegations that were based on this RUMOR. Right?

Give me a break Neil. You are very right. This is something that most newspapers will not do. All I'm asking is that the Bay News base it’s reporting on FACTS, not rumors.
Is this too much to ask?
If it is, I've heard all kinds of rumors that the “Bay Enquirer” might be interested in reporting on.

Michael Jones, Los Osos

Churadogs said...

Anon sez:"Although there was a big stink made by the "Move the Sewer" people, as Bleskey and his own staff proved, Gordon did not use any CSD funds for ANY purpose from June 2004-September 30, 2005. AT ALL. In fact, when he was on his own business, if it was possible, he included some CSD business, AT HIS OWN EXPENSE. But of course, that was conveniently forgotten. I suggest you ask the AP clerk at the CSD office, she did the research. Find out for yourself, and put a stop to all this rehash of lies, lies, lies."

You misread what I wrote. I wasn't talking about funds. I was talking about the same thing Gordon was apparently accusing the new Board of doing: Mixing up time. I have said elsewhere but will repeat here: The same charges could have been made against Gordon, or Rose, for example (i.e. emailing from Cal Poly (state) computers, or mixing face time while on CSD business) but never in a million years would I have filed a public records request to accuse those folks of doing that. I have absolutely NO DOUBT that all the board members, old, new, whatever, have donated gazillions of their own private time to doing the public's business for which they will get no compensation. Gordon included! That is a given for people serving in public office. Which is why I found Gordon and the TPW's request for public documents so surprising. He, of all people, should have known better. Unless this was simply a case of "payback?" If so, it went awry and ended up making him look bad. Which is too bad.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Do you really think that no one from CCLO or CASE called Poly to complain about Rose using state computers and state time for CSD related work?

I would humbly suggest you are naive if you believe that with no evidence to the contrary. Maybe you should give Les a call and ask him.