Pages

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Another (Follow-up) Viewpoint viewpoint

The following “follow-up viewpoint” was emailed to me from Gail McPherson (who had a Viewpoint in the Tribune recently, also posted here) with a request to post. So far, there’s been three “Viewpoints,” from Bill Garfinkle, the Sustainability Group and Gail.

On a personal note, I feel that Bill Garfinkle’s Viewpoint was a mistake insofar as he expresed a preference as to type of system this early in the Process. As head of the TAC, he knows full well that he carries with him a mantle of “authority,” and as such, should have refrained from expressing
any preference, since it is simply human nature for many to assume that that preference has official sanction since Mr. Garfinkle was a County- appointed “official.” And before some of you start yelling about free speech, it isn’t about free speech, it’s about Caesar’s Wife. Everyone on the TAC needed (and needs) to remain bipartisan on this whole issue while this critical Process is still moving ahead. Any publicly stated preference for whatever system is being considered that is made by "official" folks will end up being divisive and counterproductive. In short, Official Personages need to stay above the fray while the non-Official second string enters the field and thrashes it out in the public theatre.

An added note, in an email from John Waddell ,is that the County Surveys were “anonymous” so there’s no way to know who responded or failed to respond (and why, or whether they even got the survey, & etc.) and so the county’s encouraging people to keep an eye out and if they didn’t get the survey, to call the County. The final count of how many surveys get returned will be interesting. Especially as compared to the last “survey.”

Comment

My intent has always been to highlight the water issues, and to move a project forward based on a good design and the community having a vote. In hindsight, it is hard to deny that the 2000-2004 CSD had lost control which resulted in the over-priced, over-designed, badly sited, and underfunded project. I saw a lack transparency and accountability in late 2004 as they steam rolled the community. I found errors in their process. I understand that in addition to pride, they had spent all the bond money and were at a point of no return. Thank goodness the project was halted, and we won’t know the final tally, if it costs us more or less for all that mess, resulting from 20 years of obstructions from all stripes until this process is completed and the valves to the plant open.

A few clarifications; the repeated misinformation on the blog about the lack of a plan- A draft project report was written and several wastewater professionals helped peer review it. Ironically, Stan stated publicly he would not allow it to be accepted unless it was stamped by a engineer. (recall MWH failed to stamp theirs) LOTTF did have an engineer that passed the work on to Blakeslee and Rob Miller to use after the recall. (I still have most of it in electronic format and the binder) The revised project was used in the October 2005 first Blakeslee compromise. The SRF engineers use the information to develop verifications of property sites, lower cost technology, and developed time schedules. Rob presented the plan in November 2005 publicly.

Another correction: I have never promised $100 a month for a sewer (that was CASE) and I was criticized bitterly for not providing or endorsing a fixed cost or circulating the draft report to the public. The vote was against the board and project. Something else pops up from time to time- the ABC regional plan, which was Joey Racano. I have been willing to look at many ideas for what might work, and the county thought it was worth exploring too, if the costs could be shared. Blakeslee agreed that we needed to take the time to explore all options. The County is doing that. Whatever is said about the TriW project, it is clear from the record that the CSD didn't have time to develop the best alternatives. They didn't have the judgment or industry expertise to counter the water board, consultant’s greed, special interests or political agendas at work. And last, rules for crossing creeks aren’t new, that was another lie.
I believe from a position of trust and leadership Bill's exhorting the close-mindedness just as the county and community most needs open-mindedness was a wrong move. He certainly has the right to speak his mind. My wrong move was to make personal references to his character. I have long suspected Paavo’s job of keeping the project for being hijacked back to TRI W was made more difficult by supervisor Gibson's close affiliation and friendship with the Taxpayers Watch.

My hope in the coming weeks is that everyone can take a deep breath and read the entire county status report word for word. You will see that we are at the apex of possibilities and we owe it to our community to begin to open a dialogue among representatives from all sides, and stop speaking past one another. This is especially important in weighing in on the definition of terms like minimal, affordable, green, sustainable, reuse, disposal, maximum benefit etc. and try for measurable criteria. Then let the short listed teams put the best and brightest to work developing competitive proposals with a guaranteed maximum price, including full life cycle operation and maintenance costs. Let them include both collection systems and treatment works and get creative in the process.

108 comments:

Richard LeGros said...

GAIL MCPHERSON, YOU AIN'T FOOLIN' ANYONE!

Let's take a little look at Gail's statements in her 'follow-up viewpoint':

GAIL WROTE:
"In hindsight, it is hard to deny that the 2000-2004 CSD had lost control which resulted in the over-priced, over-designed, badly sited, and under funded project. I saw a lack transparency and accountability in late 2004 as they steam rolled the community. I found errors in their process. I understand that in addition to pride, they had spent all the bond money and were at a point of no return."

RESPONSE:
LOL, 'lost control' of the project? The only 'loss of control' of the waste water project was by the post-recall board; which bungled the job soooo badly that the State Legislature voted UNANIMOUSLY to strip the recall board and CSD of the Waste water authority!

The Tri-W project was developed strictly according to the 2002 bond assessment project description; a project which was approved by 80%+ of the property owners! The property owners put up $21,000,000 to develop the Tri-W project; so of course the money was used for that purpose; that was what the money was collected for!

'Under funded'? Tri-W was fully funded by the SRF loan.

Gail’s' other points that Tri-W was over-designed, poorly sited, etc. are all nothing but subjective statements used to apologize for her failures and lack of vision.

Gail found 'errors' in the process...LOL, the lady supported 13 lawsuits against the CSD over her perceived errors; all of which failed! Process was strictly and correctly followed!

As for the price of the project, her playing the process delayed the commencement of construction by 3years! 3 years!, during which the USA saw draconian increases of construction cost inflation. Inflation, coupled with the dirth of bidding contractors caused by the project's opponents harassment of bidding contractors; of course resulted in higher costs to the community!

Gail wrote:
"...the repeated misinformation on the blog about the lack of a plan- A draft project report was written and several wastewater professionals helped peer review it. Ironically, Stan stated publicly he would not allow it to be accepted unless it was stamped by an engineer."

RESPONSE:
LOL! An absolute lie!
Stan never rejected any plan or offer to accept a plan.
In fact, the board asked constantly for to see the 'plan' as the board had agendized numerous times for LLTTF to make a formal presentation of their plan to the board; LLTTF always failed to present their project when agendized; and asked for postponement to do so many times! To date, a 'plan' has never materialized!

GAIL WROTE:
"Another correction: I have never promised $100 a month for a sewer..."

RESPONSE: Nor did she correct Chuck, Steve, John and Lisa when they were running for office for using the $100/month cost either!

GAIL WROTE:
"I have long suspected Paavo’s job of keeping the project for being hijacked back to TRI W was made more difficult by supervisor Gibson's close affiliation and friendship with the Taxpayers Watch."

RESPONSE:

LOL, Gail is delusional! Supervisor Gibson has no affiliations with TW at all; nor is he a friend to TW. IF the Tri-W project is restarted, it will be through the process that it is reactivated.

-R

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Ann,

Don't you think that the TAC members who have studied the options more thoroughly than the rest of us ... once their TAC duties are essentially over ... should have the right to tell us their opinion? I don't see you complaining about Lisa's viewpoint recently and I don't see any real difference between the two situations? Two individuals who have studied the issues a lot offering their point of view on what sort of systems are best ... why is it okay for Lisa and not for Bill?

Sewertoons said...

Thank you Richard - it is imperative that lies are called out as such, and Gail has quite a track record.

She rattles on quite a bit here but certainly isn't saying much about her poorly written and looser PZLDF case, is she?

Speaking of Bruce Gibson, it was great to see him point-by-point de-bunk the assumptions and innuendo put out by Los Osos Sustainability Group members and sympathizers at his last meeting. He stopped to pull apart each faulty assumption to get to the actual facts. He and Paavo really exposed the mis-information.

Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Richard LeGros said...

Thanks Sewertoons!,

I forgot on my last post.

Gail McPherson, along with Lisa Schicker, Chuck Cesena, Steve Senet and John Fouche were all board memebers of the LLTTF; which was the organizatin that announced having a 'plan' costing $100/month.

Gail cannot disingage herself from that lie as she was an active member of the group that proposed it to begin with; nor offered up information contrary to the cost claims of Lisa, Chuck, John and Steve.

-R

Realistic1 said...

So much for Ann's "no spin" stance. Gail's version of events, along with her denial of her own culpability in the "$100" lie...what a bunch of BS.

Mike said...

Why won't Ann comment on the proportional agreed upon amount PZLDF has not paid in that lawsuit?

Maybe Gail can add that to her list of lies requiring exposure to the public...???

Just how much has PZLDF cost this community...?????? I wouldn't want to get that wrong Ann, how about you telling us how much that lawsuit cost...????

Aaron said...

I now have a response to Gail McPherson's viewpoint, which can be found by clicking here.

Gail is to stop speaking behind the podium, emerge from her cowardice to speak to the people of Los Osos. If she's not going to do that, she has to go.

Realistic1 said...

Bravo, Aaron.

While I disagree with your assessment of where the County is headed (I don't believe anything is written in stone)...I applaud you for calling Gail McPherson out.

Your observations are accurate and astute. Gail has been playing both sides of the fence all along and it's time everyone knew it.

Sewertoons said...

Thank you Aaron, for your thoughtful and well written assessment of Gail and her actions. Your statement of, "not having any options at all obstructs progress. Perhaps that is what makes so many believe that she is the obstructionist," says it perfectly.

Sewertoons said...

How dare Gail back away from her involvement in LOTTF and the $100 - which had more to do with the mess we are in now than any other statement, person or event. Same goes for $154/month. Liar. If they really had a plan we wouldn't be HERE. Even people who voted NO 4 times were willing to work with the new Board just to get something done. Every candidate who won an election on that lie owes each Los Osos citizen an apology and some cash to help needy citizens pay for this more expensive sewer. We all had a lot more financial stability to make those $205/mo. payments in 2005 than we do now to make $250/mo. payments.

Jeez, just an apology and an acknowledgement of screwing up would go a long way toward healing the community. I mean it is so obvious - why not just cop to it?

What have we really gained in these 4 additional years? We all know a lot more about varying types of sewer systems?! Yeah, that's really gonna help pay the bills!

Billy Dunne said...

Alex Benson of SLO provided this link today in the Opinion section of the Trib. Thanks Alex.

Instead of the continued lobbying and misleading, whiney, conspiratorial, victumized tripe written by the ever-metamorphizing no sewer/move the sewer/any sewer but gravity gang, THIS should be read by every homeowner in Los Osos.

BD

http://www.ci.olympia.wa.us/documents/WastewaterManagementPlan_2007/WWMP_CH6_0907.pdf

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette wrote: Speaking of Bruce Gibson, it was great to see him point-by-point de-bunk the assumptions and innuendo put out by Los Osos Sustainability Group members and sympathizers at his last meeting. He stopped to pull apart each faulty assumption to get to the actual facts. He and Paavo really exposed the mis-information.

I am looking forward to the county's responses to the DEIR comments.
Why don’t Bruce Gibson and Paavo want to pull apart USBF™?

As Paavo Ogren stated on the record in August of 2007: “Technology that is significantly less expensive becomes the new standard and all others fall away”

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette wrote: We all had a lot more financial stability to make those $205/mo. payments in 2005 than we do now to make $250/mo. payments.

Good thinking, Lynette.

BTW a $50,000,0000.00 30 year interest free SRF loan payment is: $138,888.89

$138,888.89 divided equally between 4,769 connections = $29.12 capital cost… Of course there would be O&M and other costs management that would be figured in same as would be added to the any ther system except that energy use and O&M would be lower than anything contained in the current DEIR.

Here is the basis for my calculations
Principal amount: $100,000,000.00
Payment amount: $277,777.78
Interest rate: 0.000%
Interest compounding: Monthly
Total payments: $100,000,000.00
Total interest: $0.00

360 months "interest free SRF" money.
You can do the math as the cost of the project increases given these are the true figures.

The treament technology the county brought forward in its DEIR uses 600, 900, and 1.1M kWh/year while ECOfluid uses 454 kWh/year

Watershed Mark said...

$29.12 capital cost…for an out of town low pressure system having no septic tanks.

Why wouldn't anyone want that?

Sewertoons said...

Funny how Gail disses Bill Garfinkel who was the Chair of a now-defunct group, bur says nothing about Chuck's "viewpoint" today when he is a sitting LOCSD Board member. Maybe she will email Ann some sort of spin on why that is OK, but Bill's Viewpoint was not.

Sewertoons said...

Yes, a big thanks to Alex Benson!! Fascinating reading!

Watershed Mark said...

Effluent Problems
Because STEP systems operate anaerobically, decay of solids in the tank releases
ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, which has an unpleasant “rotten egg” smell. The
liquid effluent that enters the gravity system from STEP systems contains a high
portion of hydrogen sulfide, making it highly corrosive to the downstream
concrete gravity pipes and manholes into which it flows. The nature of the
effluent creates a potential for groundwater contamination in corroded gravity
sewer pipes and the need for supplemental aeration at the LOTT facility.
Odor. Hydrogen sulfide gases associated with STEP systems can be emitted from
downstream gravity pipelines, resulting in neighborhood odor problems. Nonmechanical
aerators and/or chemical filters may be necessary to neutralize odor as
the effluent is discharged into the sewer system. In one neighborhood, costly
odor control equipment has been installed to correct the situation.
Corrosion. Hydrogen sulfide is corrosive to concrete pipes and manholes, which
may need to be lined or replaced with plastic pipes. In either case, capital costs
can be high. In 2006, corrosion attributed to STEP system effluent required
emergency response and extensive replacement of pipes along Martin Way and
Lilly Road before the end of their design life.
Potential for groundwater contamination. Higher nitrate concentrations have
been found in STEP system effluent compared to conventional gravity sewers
(LOTT, 2003). Since STEP systems are under low pressure, a break in the pipes
can allow effluent to leak out, contaminating groundwater.
LOTT treatment. The anaerobic nature of STEP system effluent requires
supplemental aeration and treatment at the LOTT facility. The impacts result in
additional holding capacity and energy inputs. Concurrently, the STEP systems’
inherent treatment capability acts to starve the organisms in the LOTT Budd Inlet
Treatment Plant, which depend upon an ample amount of fresh sewage to thrive.
Since the Tumwater Brewery closed in 2003, the LOTT facility has had to
supplement influent sewage with methanol in order to optimize treatment.
Methanol addition represents a significant operational cost at the Budd Inlet Plant.

Fascinating you just can't find this kind of criticism from a "Brown and Caldwell" about leaky gravity anywhere.

This is also worth noting:

In low-lying areas or flat terrain, STEP systems are often preferred by developers
over more expensive gravity sanitary sewers and pump stations. Pipes can be
buried as shallow as 36 inches because they are pressurized and do not rely on
gravity to maintain flow.

The 1997 Sewage Disposal Master Plan identified two areas in northeast and
southeast Olympia and its UGA where STEP systems were deemed financially
appropriate due to topography and at the lack of existing gravity systems. Since
then, STEP systems also have been allowed in pockets throughout the City where
gravity sewer service is considered financially challenging, and increasingly in
areas that could have been served by conventional sewers.

Pipeline and Tank Integrity
STEP system pipes are pressure tested before installation, but the test has not been
repeated as part of maintenance. Since all pipes have been installed within the
last 15 years and are made with PVC materials, problems with pipeline integrity
are unlikely.
Inflow and Infiltration
Infiltration is unlikely, since STEP systems are tightly sealed and pressurized, and
installed using new construction techniques.

Fascinating indeed.

Smart folks are always looking for sustainable solutions.
Yes, a big thanks to Alex, I'll be calling Olympia in the morning.

Watershed Mark said...

Collection and low energy tertiary treatment for $10,484.38 or less per household...
What is not to like?

Watershed Mark said...

Gravity and plastic bell and spigot pipes leak. Sealed pipes don’t.
STEP and gravity concrete pipes don't get along:

Pipeline and Tank Integrity
STEP system pipes are pressure tested before installation, but the test has not been
repeated as part of maintenance. Since all pipes have been installed within the
last 15 years and are made with PVC materials, problems with pipeline integrity
are unlikely.
Inflow and Infiltration
Infiltration is unlikely, since STEP systems are tightly sealed and pressurized, and
installed using new construction techniques.

Hydrogen Sulfide Gas is a problem in all gravity systems.
Pump and lift stations stink.
Manholes rot from it as they infiltrate.

Sealed pipe is superior.
Sealed small diameter pipe is best for LO and is also far less expensive, to build, maintain and repair if and when necessary.

It's your money and your environment folks.

Churadogs said...

O.K. Who posted this: "GAIL MCPHERSON, YOU AIN'T FOOLIN' ANYONE!" posted Feb 26 at 8:44 a.m?
It says it's somebody calling themselves Richard Le Gros, but is that the real Richard Le Gros or that somebody who's previously been spoofing him and pretending to be him. The previous RLG posts were clearly written by a complete immature idiot throwing a drama queen hissy fit, lying, making stuff up, running smack dab into The Big Silly, clearly trying to make the real RLG look like a moron. I've made it clear, I'll start dumping people pretending to be somebody else, so who posted this entry? The real RLG or the idiot who's pretending to be him?

Inlet sez:"Don't you think that the TAC members who have studied the options more thoroughly than the rest of us ... once their TAC duties are essentially over ... should have the right to tell us their opinion? "

No, not at this delicate juncture. They were supposed to be (and seen to be) non-political, non-partison, the group was specifically prohibited from making any conclusions, they were to fairly evaluate and post those neutral findings, NOT express opinions and conclusions. The TAC has the mantle of County Authority, they have the added burden of being non-political. Plus, I would hve hoped that they would have common sense and remember Caeser's Wife AND how delicate this situation is.

As for Lisa and the CSD,etc the CSD is a "political" body, elected, partisan, NOT a "neutral" scientific County APPOINTED evaluative body. Huge difference.

Aaron sez:"Gail is to stop speaking behind the podium, emerge from her cowardice to speak to the people of Los Osos. If she's not going to do that, she has to go"

Uh, how do you speak to the people of Los Osos if you're supposed to STOP SPEAKING BEHIND THE PODIUM? Stand in front of the podium? And please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Gail's a private citizen, not an elected or appointed official. She has to go? Does that apply to other private citizens? Whooo, will you be starting a list?

Realistic 1 sez:"While I disagree with your assessment of where the County is headed (I don't believe anything is written in stone)..."

Which is why everyone needs to get thumbs off the scale and let this process work cleanly. And why Mark's question regarding EcoFluid remains vital: WAS a viable component overlooked and if so, will it be reviewed and written responses made so it can become part of the record?

Mike said...

"IF" Mark had followed the "process", he wouldn't need to be asking those questions on a blog.

Now he appears to be placing both thumbs and feet on the scale in some convoluted effort to influence the process scale...

..and how do we know WM is really who is signing on as WM...??? Maybe it's really Ann Calhoun....???

Billy Dunne said...

"...and let this process work cleanly."

Ann, this is yet again a very disingenuous or very self-deceptive statement by you. There will never be a process that is "clean" to you. Anyone who has read you over the years knows this. It will NEVER happen.

A couple of great LLTE over at the Trib today (even if it's "unfortunate" they were written, eh Ann?) Thanks Don and John. Here's the link, and have a great weekend all. BD

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/634581.html

Mike said...

...BTW, the feeble attempt to discredit Richard only reinforces the opinion that Ann Calhoun, if that's who is signing as Churadogs, really doesn't want anyone to disagree with her opinions...

Guess we should all feel lucky to have Ann giving us direction so we don't have to consider other possiblities such as maybe gravity is a very viable solution for Los Osos...

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

LOL lady!

Just call me at 528-6594 so I can verfify for you that I am Richard LeGros.

I'll tell you what, I will make it real easy for you....I will call YOU.

-R

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Gang,

I just spoke to Ann and assured her That I am who I am...Richard LeGros. So Ann now know that it was me blogging to her.

Of Course, she was 'running out the door' as I spoke to her.....her usual claim.

-R

Watershed Mark said...

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/letters-to-the-editor/story/633307.html

But what did the independent experts at the National Water Research Institute — who were hired by the county to provide a peer review of their consultants work — have to say?

That the consulting engineers didn’t seem to be comparing apples to apples when examining STEP and gravity systems. They also stated verbally that they had a hard time not using the word biased to describe the county consultants’ work.

One of the reasons for the faulty comparison is that a STEP system would utilize small-diameter plastic pipe, which could be fuse welded to eliminate leaky joints. That state-of-the-art pipe is more expensive and so it was not factored into the gravity collection system estimates.

Instead, the traditional PVC pipe with bell and spigot joints sealed by a rubber gasket was used. Using this pipe in an earthquake-prone area, especially one with sandy soils and high groundwater, is sure to eventually result in a leaky collection system. Wastewater would leak into the environment, inviting fines. It will allow saltwater to leak into the system. This would cause problems for the treatment plant and could render the treated effluent unusable as a supplement to our water supplies. The county must supply an estimate for each collection system utilizing high-density polyethylene pipe or similar fuse-welded pipe.

Chuck Cesena is a member of the Los Osos Community Services District Board of Directors.
An honest to goodness public servant exhibiting common sense. How REFRESHING!

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Gan,

I suspect Ann will claim that 'somebody' named Richard LeGros called her; hence no proof. etc.

That won't work Lady...you have caller ID; and I called from my 805-512-6894 phone number. Connect the dots!

-R

Watershed Mark said...

MIKE: It is the county who seemsto having trouble following the process.

The RFQ and request for a gravity permit from the planning commission before the DEIR comments are addressed so there is a "CERTIFIED EIR" are but two.

To be confused with Swashbuckler Ann Calhoun would be a great honor, Sir.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashbuckler

Watershed Mark said...

LR,

Are you sure your Doctor has released you for duty?

Richard LeGros said...

Oops<

I call from my 805-528-6594 #...I go\t to syop typpng tooo fast!!! LOL
-R

Watershed Mark said...

BTW, There are Caller ID Spoofing services one can use to make it appear you are being called your own number.
Confusing huh?

Fortunately we still have FACTUAL TRUTH, no matter how haed you close your eyes andcover your earswhile you scream LALALALALALALA.

LOL, Bwa hahahahahaha! You guys are so much fun!!

BTW a $50,000,0000.00 30 year interest free SRF loan payment is: $138,888.89

$138,888.89 divided equally between 4,769 connections = $29.12 capital cost… Of course there would be O&M and other costs management that would be figured in same as would be added to the any ther system except that energy use and O&M would be lower than anything contained in the current DEIR.

Here is the basis for my calculations
Principal amount: $100,000,000.00
Payment amount: $277,777.78
Interest rate: 0.000%
Interest compounding: Monthly
Total payments: $100,000,000.00
Total interest: $0.00

360 months "interest free SRF" money.
You can do the math as the cost of the project increases given these are the true figures.

The treament technology the county brought forward in its DEIR uses 600, 900, and 1.1M kWh/year while ECOfluid uses 454 kWh/year

Ron said...

Richard wrote:

"Supervisor Gibson has no affiliations with (Taxpayers Watch) at all; nor is he a friend to TW"

See, Richy? You REALLY should read SewerWatch BEFORE you post.

When you don't, it makes you look stupid(er).

As I reported at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/quick-look-at-bruce-gibsons-job.html

Gibson's appointment to the County Parks Commission is, of course, the Queen of Taxpayers Watch: Pandora Nash-Karner.

At that link, I also report (using excellent, primary sources, that I, alone, dug up, as usual):

- - -
Is anyone really surprised by this? Nash-Karner donated to Bruce Gibson's campaign. On 5/19/06, she donated $100. Why is that interesting? Because in that same entry, her year-to-date total is "$199.00," and on the "Gibson for Supervisor" site, it reads:

"For donations of $100 or more, providing your occupation and employer is required by law."

and;

"Sorry, we can not accept cash for contributions of $100 or more."

So, as usual, Nash-Karner is up to something sneaky. By donating just one dollar below the $100, like she did, she gets to anonymously contribute as much "cash" as she wants, and apparently, no one, including some smart-ass reporter, can track it. Incidentally, in Gibson's books, nearly every other donator's dollar total ends in a "0," but not Nash-Karner's, of course.

Here are some other interesting "Gibson for Supervisor" contributors:

- Bill Garfinkel: Garfinkel is the chairman of the county's Technical Advisory Committee for the Los Osos project.

- Frank Freiler: Freiler was a former LOCSD Director partly responsible for throwing over $20 million towards the development of the Tri-W project. [Note: Freiler was also a Solution Group member, along with Nash-Karner, Gordon Hensley, and Stan Gustafson.]

- Les Bowker: Bowker is perhaps the "below the radar"-est person in this whole affair. He's been on the RWQCB forever, and his wife, Rose Bowker (now deceased) was an initial LOCSD Director that spent two years chasing the Solution Group's "better, cheaper, faster" ponding system that formed the LOCSD, yet, predictably, failed two years later. Les Bowker was also a member of the Solution Group, according to a Solution Group newsletter.

- Longtime Nash-Karner friend, and previous 2nd District Supervisor, Shirley Bianchi, of course. She gave $500.00 on 12/28/05... merry Christmas, Bruce.
- - -

At http://brucegibsonforsupervisor.org/endorsements.html

Nash-Karner writes:

" Pandora Nash-Karner:  "Gary and I are supporting Bruce Gibson for Supervisor. We believe Bruce Gibson has the background, knowledge and scientific expertise to help us build the sewer – quickly. Our next supervisor will have to work hard to evaluate the existing data and move forward to stop the pollution and comply with the law. I have spoken with Bruce Gibson on many occasions...

Richard, your definition of "no affiliations" seems to resemble your definition of "forever."

Richard also wrote, about Ann:

"Of Course, she was 'running out the door' as I spoke to her.....her usual claim."

Uh, dude, trust me, that wasn't a "claim," that was an excuse to get you off the phone... you called her at home.

Ann, the next time he calls you at home, here are some other "claims" you can use:

"I have something on the stove."

"I'm expecting an important phone call."

"Hello? Hello? I think we have a bad connection." [click]

Richard wrote:

"IF the Tri-W project is restarted..."

Oh, please, please, please, for the sake of my story, if there's a journalism God in heaven, let that happen.

Watershed Mark said...

Ron "THE MAN" Crawford astutely, as always, wrote: Uh, dude, trust me, that wasn't a "claim," that was an excuse to get you off the phone... you called her at home.

BRILLIANT observation and conclusion RC… AGAIN!

Watershed Mark said...

Ann, the next time he calls you at home, here are some other "claims" you can use:

"I have something on the stove."

"I'm expecting an important phone call."

"Hello? Hello? I think we have a bad connection." [click]

Bwa hahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Belly laughing is a great stress reliever and ought to be done much more often.

"Hello? Hello? I think we have a bad connection." [click]

Bwa hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Richard LeGros said...

Pandora Nash Karner has absolutely no affiliations with; and absolutely no input into; the Taxpayer's Watch organization at all. Neither now or in the past. Period.

Those folks that claim Pandora is part of the Taxpayer's Watch organization are are incorrect and uninformed.

After this post, those that continue saying she is affiliated with Taxpayer's Watch are lying.

-R

Watershed Mark said...

This from Assembly Blalslee's Newsletter:

Assemblyman Blakeslee Chairs meeting of Republican Task Force on the Environment, Energy and the Economy (E3).
Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee recently led a forum at the State Capitol with top industry leaders to discuss strategies to make California a leader in the global clean tech economy. As Chair of E3, the Republican Task Force on the Environment, Energy and the Economy (E3), Blakeslee is working to advance responsible policies that protect our environment while growing our economy and creating jobs. Comprised of 20 Assemblymembers and 2 Senators, E3 works to utilize the power of free markets to spur innovation, promote resource stewardship and bring clean tech jobs back to California.
At the first E3 briefing of the year entitled, "Clean Tech and Economic Stimulus," members discussed legislative options for promoting clean and independent energy solutions.
Additionally, members heard from industry leaders about a variety of cutting edge technologies that show great promise in helping California meet its aggressive environmental objectives.
Assemblyman Blakeslee and E3 will continue working to identify common sense strategies for truly improving California environmental outcomes by harnessing the power of entrepreneurship and innovation.

This from www.ECOfluid.com:

(December 05, 2007)
ECOfluid Awarded One of Canada's Top Ten Cleantech Companies

ECOfluid Awarded One of Canada's Top Ten Cleantech Companies

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, December 5, 2007 – ECOfluid Systems Inc. (“ECOfluid” or “the Company”) announced today that it has been selected by the Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation (OCRI) as one of this year's winners for Canada's Top Ten Cleantech Companies Competition.

Commenting on the award, Mr. Karel Galland, P. Eng., President and Founder said “We are delighted, and very proud, to be selected as one of Canada’s top ten cleantech companies. ‘Giving water new life’ is our motto and with our technology we believe we can do it more cost effectively than any other mechanical technology available today.”

Yeap, skating to where the puck will be is how to make points.

M said...

Where can a list of Taxpayers Watch be found?

Aaron said...

I believe there is no list. I'm not sure. I think Gordon Hensley, at one point, said he considered TW members as those who signed the dissolution petition.

Richard LeGros said...

M & Aaron,

Aaron is correct as to the 3,500 names.

TW does have a +900 member mailing list and a +750 member email list. However, those lists are confidential. If you care to be placed on either list (your name not bt be given out); or if you have any questions regarding TW; please feel free to email me your question(s) to archRBL@aol.com

-R

Mike said...

Where may one obtain a list of all PZLDF members...???

Sewertoons said...

I'll bet that list is kept in a safety deposit box at a bank - just so none of then escape!

Aaron said...

There aren't many active members of PZLDF. You have the folks named as plaintiffs in the PZLDF lawsuit and then you have the Board of Directors (as copied from www.pzldf.org):

Officers

Executive Director: Gail McPherson
Sec/Treasurer: Robyn Hayhurst

Directors

Director Paula McMahon
Director Steve Paige
Director Norman Risch

Churadogs said...

billy sez:"Ann, this is yet again a very disingenuous or very self-deceptive statement by you. There will never be a process that is "clean" to you. Anyone who has read you over the years knows this. It will NEVER happen

ah, billy, you're making stuff up again. but here's a quote from Mark, above:"One of the reasons for the faulty comparison is that a STEP system would utilize small-diameter plastic pipe, which could be fuse welded to eliminate leaky joints. That state-of-the-art pipe is more expensive and so it was not factored into the gravity collection system estimates."

Billy, please tell me how not factoring in the higher cost of welded pipe when comparing it sealed pressure system pipe (apples to apples) is keeping the thumbs off the scale? It's that sort of thing that can derail any process and it's that sort of thing that people have to make sure the County gets right.

richard sez:"I just spoke to Ann and assured her That I am who I am...Richard LeGros. So Ann now know that it was me blogging to her.

Of Course, she was 'running out the door' as I spoke to her.....her usual claim"

Yep, was heading off to work.
And thanks for the call, I can now officially announce that the lying, hysterical, drama-queen, hissy-fit, reckless, dishonest, immature, I'm Making Stuff Up tantrums that have been appearing under Richard's name actually is Richard. Woa! Quite a revelation. Now I won't have to think that you're being spoofed when I see completely dishonest hysterical nonsense being spouted by you -- it actually will be you. You DO make things up. That's nice to know. Especially when you go all huffy when anyone challenges your veracity. Now we'll know for sure. You have no veracity. Thanks for the heads up.

ron sez:"Richard also wrote, about Ann:

"Of Course, she was 'running out the door' as I spoke to her.....her usual claim."

Uh, dude, trust me, that wasn't a "claim," that was an excuse to get you off the phone... you called her at home.

Ann, the next time he calls you at home, here are some other "claims" you can use:

"I have something on the stove."

"I'm expecting an important phone call."

"Hello? Hello? I think we have a bad connection." [click]"

Well, I'll sure keep those in mind but I actually was heading out the door to go to work. Maybe because Richard makes so much stuff up all the time he just assumed other people do too?

Oh, Ron, as for your question on an earlier post, regarding who signed Bill GArfinkle's original Viewpoint, the Feb 26 Bay News (www.tolosapress.com) on page 7, is the Viewpoint,this time with the full list of people who signed the viewpoint. You asked if Pandora signed it. Yep, her name's 5 lines from the bottom.

Richard sez:"After this post, those that continue saying she is affiliated with Taxpayer's Watch are lying."

Lying. Hmmmm, coming from Richard, this is really . . . rich.

M said...

So R, you're saying that she did not sign the dissolution petition? She of the "sue them out of existence!' fame.
Out of 3500 adults in this town, she is not one of them? Wow.
Is that petition still viewable, or is it locked up in a safety deposit box somewhere?
Sincerely, M

Mike said...

...and your dear friend Gail McPherson is the most honest person in Los Osos...???

...and since she is such a dear friend and President of your much admired PZLDF, oh and by the way, you co-signed with her on to the failed PZLDF lawsuit..., since you are such buddies, would you mind asking her for a copy of the accounting to show that she actually paid the CSD the agreed upon portion of the legal fees...???

It would be nice to see just how honest that Gail, the PZLDF and "co-signers" really are... There was much press about the TaxPayers Watch paying back LAFCo, so why shouldn't PZLDF be held to the same level of accountability...??? Could it be that the "agreement", was simply a sham, lie or what ever you might call dishonesty and you Ann are part of that...???

So far, it appears Richard has called a spade a spade and you have been the immature child who doesn't want to admit to being wrong...!!!!!

Mike said...

BTW, signing a petition is a long way from signing a lawsuit and then lying about not paying your portion of the agreement with the CSD...

Pandora has been out of the picture for a very long time...but Gail and Ann are still trying to slam the scales in their direction, they sure as hell don't want to listen to anyone who disagrees with them....

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"Oh, Ron, as for your question on an earlier post, regarding who signed Bill GArfinkle's original Viewpoint, the Feb 26 Bay News (www.tolosapress.com) on page 7, is the Viewpoint,this time with the full list of people who signed the viewpoint. You asked if Pandora signed it. Yep, her name's 5 lines from the bottom."

Thank you for that absolutely sickening news.

Sickening, because in that Viewpoint, it reads:

""... those individuals and groups who have successfully delayed the project these past 20 years are once again challenging the project with claims that there are better solutions, the project is not green enough, it costs too much, the engineering is flawed or we don’t need it."

That's explains Nash-Karner, to the "T."

In her 1998 newsletter (an excellent primary source, that, I, alone, scanned in and made available to the public), she called the county's "ready to go" sewer project, "ruinously expensive."

Then, after saturating Los Osos with crap like that, she tricked voters into voting for her CSD, and her, as a director, where she immediately DUMPED the county's "ready to go" project on March 4, 1999 (Nearly 10 f-ing years ago, to the day!), and now, NOW, she signs (and most likely had a hand in writing) this BS:

""... those individuals and groups who have successfully delayed the project these past 20 years are once again challenging the project with claims that there are better solutions, the project is not green enough, it costs too much, the engineering is flawed or we don’t need it."

The hypocrisy is disgusting. Dis-gust-ing.

Richard wrote:

"Pandora Nash Karner has absolutely no affiliations with; and absolutely no input into; the Taxpayer's Watch organization at all. Neither now or in the past. Period."

Why the distancing, Richard?

Does Nash-Karner know that her old partner in crime, Gordon Hensley, is so embarrassed by her, that his "spokesperson" writes, "Pandora Nash Karner has absolutely no affiliations with; and absolutely no input into; the Taxpayer's Watch organization at all. Neither now or in the past. Period."

Pandora? That's kind of harsh on you. You still down with Gordo?

Mike wrote:

"There was much press about the TaxPayers Watch paying back LAFCo..."

I'm flattered, because the only "press" that got, was me.

Here:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2008/07/taxpayers-watch-we-want-our-924750-and.html

and here:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2008/08/unlike-my-moms-garden-club-taxpayers.html

Mike wrote:

"Pandora has been out of the picture for a very long time..."

Dude, she just signed her hypocritical Viewpoint a couple weeks back.

Sickening.

Watershed Mark said...

ve·rac·i·ty
Pronunciation: \və-ˈra-sə-tē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ve·rac·i·ties
Date: circa 1623
1 : devotion to the truth : truthfulness
2 : power of conveying or perceiving truth
3 : conformity with truth or fact : accuracy
4 : something true .............................makes lies sound like veracities

Watershed Mark said...

Ann wrote: Maybe because Richard makes so much stuff up all the time he just assumed other people do too?

That's why I sometimes ask "what color is the shy in your world?"

Watershed Mark said...

what color is the sky in your world?"

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Aaron,

Which of those PZLDF people is the one who should verify that PZLDF paid Sullivan some $600k? After all, if the LOCSD was on the hook for 25% of the payment of their lawsuit costs and if the LOCSD paid over $200k, PZLDF should have paid for over $600k. Have you seen any verification that they've lived up to their end of the bargain? If they haven't it would appear that it was an attempt to get the LOCSD to cover their legal bills ... fraud, if you will.



On other issues, I am amused that Ron, crack reporter didn't actually even look at the Bay News website before asking his question. Glad that Ann could answer him. By the way, has anyone been over to Ron's blog to see if there is anything new? Has anyone commented yet on his January blog entry?


Mark, that you have to ask the color of the sky in Los Osos pretty much shows that you've never even been here let alone care about our little gray community.

M said...

Now that Ron has posted a link from the 1998 newsletter claiming $35 a month, can someone post a link for the claim of $100 a month?
Sincerely, M

Watershed Mark said...

BTW a $50,000,0000.00 30 year interest free SRF loan payment is: $138,888.89

$138,888.89 divided equally between 4,769 connections = $29.12 a month capital cost… Of course there would be O&M and other costs management that would be figured in same as would be added to the any ther system except that energy use and O&M would be lower than anything contained in the current DEIR.

Watershed Mark said...

Steve, What color is the sky in your world?

http://askville.amazon.com/color-sky-world/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=20096676

Knock yourself out!
knock yourself out
please begin doing it If you want to make hotel and airline and car reservations and take care of everything, well, then, knock yourself out.
Usage notes: usually said to show you are unhappy with someone who has complained about your efforts

Watershed Mark said...

Steve wrote:
Aaron,

Which of those PZLDF people is the one who should verify that PZLDF paid Sullivan some $600k?

Knock yourself out.



Don't you do any work yorself?

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

My gosh Mark,

If you didn't realize this was a rhetorical question you probably need to pay more attention here or use wikipedia to look up "rhetorical question".

And ... for M ... see http://sharkinlet.fileave.com/$100perMonth.pdf for a campaign flyer about the $100/month. It was found on the CVVC (or some such) website shortly before the election. Who ran that group?

Watershed Mark said...

In the voice of Gomer Pile: Golly...Or Wally Clever: Gee Beav…
So Steve, if you have all the answers why not put your statements in the form of an answer?

M said...

We've been through this before shark. Nowhere in the link you provided does it say "$100 a month", whereas the one Ron provided indeed stated "$38.75 a month". See the difference. I want to see something that promised $100 a month.
Sincerely, M

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Quoting from the flyer:

• The current plan will cost residents at least $225 per month and could force as many as 1/3 of our residents to move out. The alternative plan will cost us less than $100 per month.


That sounds pretty clear to me. How could someone interpret this as anything less than a promise?

Mike said...

...let's see...you may have to read down to the bottom of the flyer...

"B-05 protects us from fines. The CSD is using scare tactics to tell us that Los Osos will be fined if we don’t go along with the current project. This is only true if we refuse to build a treatment plant. We have better alternatives that will be voted on and immediately implemented, if the recall is successful and/or if measure B-05 is passed.
• The current plan will cost residents at least $225 per month and could force as many as 1/3 of our residents to move out. The alternative plan will cost us less than $100 per month.

OK M.... Just where was this "We have better alternatives that will be voted on and immediately implemented, if the recall is successful..." and of course that alternative plan "... will cost us less than $100 per month.

So M, what don't you see or understand...????

Aaron said...

There was a comment that Ann made that I missed. I would like to address it:

Uh, how do you speak to the people of Los Osos if you're supposed to STOP SPEAKING BEHIND THE PODIUM? Stand in front of the podium? And please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Gail's a private citizen, not an elected or appointed official. She has to go? Does that apply to other private citizens? Whooo, will you be starting a list?

There is one thing that I learned after speaking at the podium. Speaking at the podium is not the only way you can speak to the people of Los Osos. You need to spread your message to the people who do not watch Channel 20. Not everyone in Los Osos watches that channel nor do they have access to it nor is it readily known that DVDs of meetings can be found at the South Bay Library.

Writing confusing viewpoints and speaking about minuscule topics ad nauseum at the podium does not help the community of Los Osos. Draining money out of homeowners to support disastrous lawsuits and defunct organizations does not help the community of Los Osos. Spreading defamation and slander to respected members of the community does not help the community of Los Osos.

Let's make this clear. It's true that Gail is a private citizen and private citizens have the complete right to express themselves as they see fit, but Gail is a private citizen with benefits, meaning she's been very close to the CSD in terms of how the CSD made decisions. She had more of an elevated status over other private citizens because her input had higher priority over others.

Prior to the recall, McPherson was given access to many CSD documents and she had cartons of them in her living room. I don't know if those documents were classified or not, but I remember Lisa Schicker, who was at her house at the time I was there, said, "These documents technically shouldn't be outside of the office, but there is some good stuff found here."

Gail would gather the post-recall board in a huddle and I could hear her dictating what they should say and do. Gail was also given the task of being the main speaker at the 2005 workshops because she was a "dignified" wastewater expert, said Schicker at one time. It was implied that Gail would be the head broker for the LOWWP.

When The ROCK first started, I noticed that those interested in designing and constructing a wastewater project went through McPherson as if she was somehow appointed. It would later appear that she would be part of the talks between the one selling their system and the CSD.

"I was contacted by Gail McPherson in late 2005, and was engaged in a discussion with her, two or board members and the then general manager about the sort of planning process they 'should' be carrying on. It was intimated that they would get me involved in a couple projects, but that never happened," said David "Waterguy" Venhuizen on my blog.

For some reason, Gail was always there serving as the broker. Somewhere along the line, she shed that "private citizen" label and transcended into the kind of position that people ought to be appointed to.

Now, in my earlier comment, I was talking about how she should be talking directly to the people instead of talking on both sides of her mouth behind the podium at a meeting that only a few people follow. If she's unwilling to carry her message to the people, then she has to go.

Watershed Mark said...

The statement: The alternative plan will cost us less than $100 per month.
Is a campaign promise.

Which is much different than looking into the camera after being asked a direct question amd sewering:
"I did not have sexual relations with "THAT woman"; Ms Lewinsky.

Or "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES."

Watershed Mark said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_new_taxes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_did_not_have_sexual_relations_with_that_woman

Watershed Mark said...

Clinton uttered the quote during a January 26, 1998,

"Read my lips: no new taxes" is a now-famous phrase spoken by former American president and candidate George H. W. Bush at the 1988 Republican National Convention as he accepted the nomination on August 18.


These too happened long ago and have nothing to contribute to today's debate.

While this statement does: $138,888.89 divided equally between 4,769 connections = $29.12 capital cost… Of course there would be O&M and other costs of management that would be figured in same as would be added to the any other system except that energy use and O&M would be lower than anything contained in the current DEIR.

May God Bless Paul Harvey.
May he rest in peace.

Watershed Mark said...

Los Osoans ought to work hard to get control of their energy budget for the proposed and now studied WWTP.

Why not use a proven off the shelf technology that uses at least half the energy than systems contained the DEIR?
Who wouldn't want to do that?

Did anyone else hear that there may be a rewrite of the current DEIR?

Watershed Mark said...

Then there is "I won't sign any bill with earmarks"

Churadogs said...

Mike sez:"So far, it appears Richard has called a spade a spade and you have been the immature child who doesn't want to admit to being wrong...!!!!!"

No, Richard admitted to making stuff up. Like you do.

Aaron sez:"If she's unwilling to carry her message to the people, then she has to go."

Uh, go where?

M said...

oops
Sincerely, M

Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Watershed Mark said...

Psychosis (from the Greek ψυχή "psyche", for mind or soul, and -οσις "-osis", for abnormal condition), with adjective psychotic, literally means abnormal condition of the mind, and is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". People suffering from psychosis are said to be psychotic.

People experiencing psychosis may report hallucinations or delusional beliefs, and may exhibit personality changes and disorganized thinking. This may be accompanied by unusual or bizarre behavior, as well as difficulty with social interaction and impairment in carrying out the activities of daily living.

Delusional Disorder
Non-bizarre delusions including feelings of being followed, poisoned, infected, deceived or conspired against, or loved at a distance. Non-bizarre referred to real life situations which could be true, but are not or are greatly exaggerated. Bizarre delusions, which would rule out this disorder, are those such as believing that your stomach is missing or that aliens are seeking you out to be their leader. Delusional disorder can be subtyped into the following categories: erotomanic, grandiose, jealous, persecutory, somatic, and mixed. Symptoms include:

Nonbizarre delusions for at least one month.

Absence of obviously odd or bizarre behavior.

Schizoaffective Disorder and Mood Disorder with Psychotic Features have been ruled out.

Absence of evidence that an organic factor initiated and maintained this psychotic disturbance.

Absence of prominent hallucinations of a voice for at least one week. Absence of visual hallucinations for at least one week.

Has never met the criteria for the active phase of Schizophrenia.

R,
Did you actually get a doctor's note?

Aaron said...

Gail and I had an argument and we exchanged e-mails back in forth by the end of 2005. She asked me, "What should I do? Where should I go?" I didn't respond because I assumed, at the time, that she would do the right thing on her own.

She can go away, meaning that she no longer has to contribute to the problem and feel the need to be the middleman in every step of the process. I could argue that what she has done to the community can constitute as her being a liability for the district.

If she is unable to peel herself away from the politics, she can always go back to Riverside. She has plenty of friends there.

The reason I posted that extremely verbose message was that I've heard time and time again the argument that Gail is a private citizen, not someone who was voted into power or appointed. I wanted to lay that argument to rest.

Sewertoons said...

Thank you Aaron!! You know far more than some of us on the Gail issue, and posting the truth is helpful to the community.

You have verified what I posted months ago about CSD documents being taken out of the CSD office -- and where they wound up. The "new" Board hired WRA and they sat upstairs in the CSD offices and were paid an enormous amount of money to comb through documents looking for misdeeds of the prior Board. Guess we would have heard something if they hit pay dirt.

That Lisa Board really ripped off the community in so many ways.

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette wrote: posting the truth is helpful to the community.

The summary of unit costs in Table 1 actually shows an increase in unit cost as
the number of units is increased. In reality, this is never the case. Economy of
scale plays a large part in the cost of utility infrastructure. Mobilization cost and
buying power greatly affect the total cost of a project.
Lift stations are “footnoted” in the Regional Costs associated with gravity sewer
at a cost of $5.12 million dollars. The memorandum fails to state that gravity
systems require lift stations to operate. Therefore, a $5.12 million expenditure is
required immediately to serve any customers with gravity.

http://www.orenco.com/pdfs/olympia_response.pdf

Page 18

Churadogs said...

Aaron sez:"The reason I posted that extremely verbose message was that I've heard time and time again the argument that Gail is a private citizen, not someone who was voted into power or appointed. I wanted to lay that argument to rest"

But she IS a private citizen, Aaaron, as are you, as is the publisher of The Rock, who, in publishing that paper has maintained a particularly public "voice," thereby putting himself in the same position as Gail, Richard leGros, as Joyce Albright as spokesperson for TPW, as does ANY "public figure" who stops being "anonymous" and self- identifies as having a point of view. Gail had/has the added benefit of actually been a certified wastewater operator, which means she knows more about wastewater and various regulatory issues than, I'd bet, anyone else in town. And she's one of the few people, I'd bet, who actually read the various technical plans and reports and I'd bet made more sense of them that 99.99% of the citizens in this fair burg, including yourself. So, I'll ask again: Go away? If that's what you want, Then that includes you also. In fact, that includes everyone in this community who has any point of view besides saying to the County: Do whatever you want to do, we will NEVER question ANY of your decisions!

This is Los Osos. Never happen. And if it were to happen, you'd likely be the first to scream bloody murder . Wouldn't you?

Mike said...

...ahh, haven't you left out a bit of McPherson's history as "...a certified wastewater operator, which means she knows more about wastewater and various regulatory issues than, I'd bet, anyone else in town."...?????

"IF" McPherson actually knew so much, why then did she have to pay a $40,000 settlement and leave her job....???? Didn't she do a few illegal things....??? And Los Osos has had to put up with her and you Ann, in her personal quest to damn the RWQCB in her extreme vindictive way...!!!! If she were some damn smart, don't you think she would never have put herself in a position to be prosecuted for illegal actions...??? No Ann, McPherson is not someone to be trusted in the Los Osos sewer decisions... She has lied Ann, and in a major way, and she continues to lie and tries to manipulate the process... she really should go back to Riverside if she has so many "friends" there... she sure does not have many here...!!!!

...and why are you of all people trying to discredit Aaron...??? He has taken a good look at this mess and applied some logic that you certaintly have avoided or cast aside as they didn't agree with your very one-sided, never compromising, only my way is right, viewpoints... Wake up Ann, Aaron has....!!!!!!!!

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Ann,

Perhaps you misread Aaron's comment ... he was complaining that Gail was given more opportunities to participate in many many ways than others ... even others who were as much "in the know" as she. Did the post-recall board call Richard up and ask him for advice? He had certainly read all those things you tell us that Gail had read and thus justified her specialness.

What is funny to me is this ... she cannot both be a regular citizen and kingmaker because she knows so much. You can't play both sides of this one.

Sewertoons said...

Ann, maybe you are worried about Gail going away because YOUR NAME is on that PZLDF lawsuit, NOT Gail's, so YOU are liable to pay for it, not she, even though the whole thing was HER IDEA!

Aaron is right about Gail. You just don't like it, Ann. Maybe it is time for you to jump ship before you are left high and dry like everyone else who follows Gail's "ideas." The Lisa board is on trial - I can only speculate what Gail's influence was on putting them there, but Gail won't take any heat or punishment for her part in that either. If nothing else, Gail has learned to be clever after the Riverside incidents.

Sewertoons said...

Aaron, I really like that you are quick enough and caring enough to want to get the truth out into the open. You are helping Los Osos heal.

But I want some answers - and I am fine with your seeing the light and changing your mind - as you have done in earlier postings. I really appreciate what you are doing now - you are a person in the unique position as having been in the thick of it, going with the Gail mantra, and now you are seeing she that wasn't really serving the community as she speaks out of both sides of her mouth.

I can't stand holding grudges on people who admit they were wrong and have the guts to say so - I am a firm believer in forgiveness and forget-ness too.

I wonder why - since you know that removing CSD documents is wrong - (Gail certainly knew it was wrong from her Riverside experiences and hopefully from the position she once held, that documents in order to be valid, need to be protected and not removed, thus preserving their integrity) - how could you support Karen's campaign? She was one of the persons responsible for removing those documents to Gail's living room. She was a party to doing something illegal.

Aaron said...

Good question.

I supported Karen Venditti because I thought that she was someone who was independent and had a decent amount of expertise that could help resolve the CSD's financial issues. She assured me that she was, but when Robin Hayhurst came to Karen's "kick-off" party and referred to Gail as being a "godsend" and claiming that Gail would be an asset to the campaign, I thought, "Hey, wait a minute. Something's up here."

At that time, I already completed the web site and I scaled back my involvement since I realized that Gail and her people were pulling the strings.

As far as the transportation of CSD documents, when I called her and asked her about it, she told me that she took copies of CSD documents that are public. All the originals were still in the office, but when I pressed her more about it, she gave me a response that was akin to, "I don't really care much about what people say on the blog." I heard nothing else about it.

Looking back at the campaign, I can't say that I was naive, but I was hopeful that she would be above the fray, but when I saw a picture of her arms wrapped around Chuck Cesena and Lisa Schicker as an endorsement photo, that bothered me. For instance, if I were to run for the CSD, I would not associate myself with people who put the district in the red financially and did not take the proper steps to ensure a WWTP for Los Osos.

Hope that answers your question.

I think that Karen is a nice person, but she did not want to win. She didn't have the drive that Maria did. If she did, she would have been forthright in clearing up ANY misconceptions (unless, of course, the claims against her were true).

Sewertoons said...

Aaron, I really appreciate your honesty. I appreciate your willingness to do your own thinking - where those far older and supposedly more mature, can't seem to make that step.

I see Karen as a nice person too, and a little naive. maybe she really did think that the documents were copies, but I have a little trouble believing that they actually were. If they were, there would have to be a record of a TON of public records requests - there was BOXES of this stuff. There would have to have been a payment for all those copies too. I know I payed $18.00 one time for one document that wasn't all that big. I don't think those requests exist.

I TOTALLY believe YOU when you say, " I remember Lisa Schicker, who was at her house (Gail's) at the time I was there, said, "These documents technically shouldn't be outside of the office, but there is some good stuff found here."

My question is not only answered, but I have the benefit of knowing where you are coming from, too and I like it. Thank you!

Aaron said...

Ann,

You made a false analogy.

It's true that I am part of The ROCK, a paper that has maintained an individualistic outlook, and it's true that I'm a private citizen, but I've never gone beyond that role by serving as a intermediary for the district; I am not a lobbyist for the county representing the interests of Blakeslee and developers; I did not pick candidates for the CSD and tell them what to do and what to say. I do not and would not meddle in governmental affairs unless the people elected me to do so. Gail has never run for any office.

You talked about Joyce Albright and Taxpayers Watch. I don't know what the members of TPW have done to help the recalled board members, but after the recall there was no indication that they served as any intermediary for the district or the county. Some members issued DEIR comments, some met and meet with the county, but I don't see Joyce Albright being in cahoots with the county as any sort of plausible sewer broker.

People say that Gail is a certified wastewater operator and that she's "in the know," but what good is her vast experience as a sewer operator if she doesn't or can't apply it constructively and effectively? If results are the measure, please post the results of her four years of efforts here.

I don't see pumping a bunch of homeowner money through the CSD into Shauna Sullivan's ill-prepared PZLDF suit as being all that productive. I don't see her pointlessly cynical viewpoints as being all that productive. I don't see her constant labeling and name-calling of her own supporters (once referring to her supporters as a "circus," then disowning them in front of the Coastal Commission) as being all that productive. I don't see her grooming, micromanagement and co-mingling with the CSD to be all that productive.

Excluding and ignoring other experts like David "Waterguy" Venhuizen isn't productive.

In early 2006, Pam brought artist and sewer designer Patricia Johanson to Los Osos. According to Johanson, Gail met with her but never followed up with any interest. There was a possibility to work with Johanson and her partner Dr. Gearhart to build an environmentally-friendly, one-of-a-kind project that fit Los Osos, but Gail rejected the idea out of hand. Gail once claimed she had met Patricia previously, but Johanson denied ever meeting her before, thus reducing Gail's credibility.

Throwing around the claim during the CSD election of '06 that Maria Kelly and Lynette Tornatzky were related didn't help her credibility either. Gail is well known for her personal attacks on people.

Her actions do not reflect the actions of someone who is a certified wastewater professional who knows what she's doing. Instead, her actions represent inaction, indecision, poor judgment and.mistake after mistake When I saw those "You delay, we pay" yard signs, I thought about Gail immediately because now those who once supported her are paying for her mistakes and reckless behavior. The "private citizen" shield just doesn't hold up when so many have to pay the price for her mistakes while she pays nothing living outside the PZ. "Private citizen" is no excuse for failure or cronyism.

She may have wastewater experience, but when it comes to making progress that benefits anyone other than herself she remains woefully inexperienced.

Aaron said...

EDIT: I meant to say the State Water Board, not the Coastal Commission in the fourth paragraph.

Sewertoons said...

Aaron, thank you again. You are really shedding some light into the dark and deceptive spin that Gail has used to net the community into confusion. And calling Ann on her false claims - just what is needed, too.

Churadogs said...

Mike sez:"...and why are you of all people trying to discredit Aaron...??? "

You misread and misunderstand what I've written. You do that often, which is why I keep reminding folks that you make stuff up.

Aaron sez:"but I've never gone beyond that role by serving as a intermediary for the district;"

In what way is Gail an "intermediary" for the district? Was she appointed by the CSD? The County? Is she acting by any formal governmental selection process to serve in any capacity other than citizen? How is she any different than, say, Al Barrow, or Maria Kelly who was often in the public eye acting as "spokesperson" for the water group & etc., or Julie Tacker who often comments at BOS meetings & etc. Do you consider Maria an "intermediary?" I don't know how you're defining or using that word.

aaron also sez:"The "private citizen" shield just doesn't hold up when so many have to pay the price for her mistakes while she pays nothing living outside the PZ. "Private citizen" is no excuse for failure or cronyism."

It's clear you had a quarrel with Gail and you disagree with her, but she's still a private citizen, as are you. Calling someone a district "intemediary" doesn't make it so.

And be careful about accusing people of costing the district pots of money while they live outside the PZ. If I'm not mistaken, at least one constant commentor on this blog fits that bill.

Sewertoons said...

Ann, you are being obtuse. Aaron made his point very clearly AND he is correct. The word intermediary is exactly the word to use. You just don't agree with him.

She is quite a bit different than Al or Maria and you know it.

Watershed Mark said...

For the record, it takes at least "three" parties to use the word intermediary, properly.

1in•ter•me•di•ary
Pronunciation: \ˌin-tər-ˈmē-dē-ˌer-ē\
Function: adjective
Date: 1788
1 : intermediate
2 : acting as a mediator -an intermediary agent--an intermediary particle

me•di•a•tor
Pronunciation: \ˈmē-dē-ˌā-tər\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: one that mediates ; especially : one that mediates between parties at variance
2: a mediating agent in a physical, chemical, or biological process

1in•ter•me•di•ate
Pronunciation: \ˌin-tər-ˈmē-dē-ət\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin intermediatus, from Latin intermedius, from inter- + medius mid, middle — more at mid
Date: 15th century
1 : being or occurring at the middle place, stage, or degree or between extremes
2 : of or relating to an intermediate school an intermediate curriculum
— in•ter•me•di•ate•ly adverb
— in•ter•me•di•ate•ness noun

properly
One entry found.




Main Entry: 1prop·er
Pronunciation: \ˈprä-pər\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English propre proper, own, from Anglo-French, from Latin proprius own
Date: 14th century
1 a: referring to one individual only b: belonging to one : own c: appointed for the liturgy of a particular day d: represented heraldically in natural color
2: belonging characteristically to a species or individual : peculiar
3chiefly dialect : good-looking , handsome
4: very good : excellent
5chiefly British : utter , absolute
6: strictly limited to a specified thing, place, or idea -the city proper
7 a: strictly accurate : correct barchaic : virtuous , respectable c: strictly decorous : genteel
8: marked by suitability, rightness, or appropriateness : fit
9: being a mathematical subset (as a subgroup) that does not contain all the elements of the inclusive set from which it is derived
synonyms see fit
— prop·er·ly adverb
— prop·er·ness noun

Aaron said...

Here's a shortened response to Ann because I'm getting ready to head to the BOS meeting.

In what way is Gail an "intermediary" for the district? Was she appointed by the CSD? The County? Is she acting by any formal governmental selection process to serve in any capacity other than citizen? How is she any different than, say, Al Barrow, or Maria Kelly?

Lisa Schicker had once told me at a CCLO meeting in mid-2005 about Gail that she was used to "reduce workload" for the district. Without her, according to Schicker, the district would be too weighed down in wastewater issues. Lisa and the board couldn't make a decision without consulting Gail first.

In other words, the CSD relied on Gail as a crutch for the same reasons as you stated, Ann. She was a certified wastewater plant operator. She's more adept to wastewater issues than they were. Over time, she graduated into the position of being an intermediary who wasn't appointed.

Gail has claimed that she was the one who brought in WilDan and Biggs. Gail later denied that she ever made those claims.

Not a lot of people realize that quite a few vendors, designers and experts provided plans for Los Osos, but none of those plans ever materialized either because Gail outright ignored them so she could focus on her organizations or reject them because they were unfit in her opinion.

That doesn't sound like a private citizen to me.

In e-mail correspondence, prospective sewer designers were ordered by the district to e-mail Gail as a primary contact for the district so she served as the proxy for the district as if she was appointed to screen projects.

That doesn't sound like a private citizen to me.

It's clear you had a quarrel with Gail and you disagree with her, but she's still a private citizen, as are you. Calling someone a district "intermediary" (fixed spelling) doesn't make it so.

It's unfortunate that you're trying to make my arguments sound trite.

I've brought up several points that show that she's transcended that private citizen role as being an intermediary for the district.

The reason I'm so verbose about this particular subject is because I feel that the problems with the district really started when Gail became involved. I could attribute these problems objectively to her -- and it's not because I had some quarrel or disagreement with her in the past.

It shouldn't be that hard to point out the bull in the china shop.

Watershed Mark said...

A Bear of a man...Kieth Wimer: "The politically preferred system"

Sewertoons said...

Aaron, Ann may try to make your arguments sound trite, but she is not succeeding in any way, shape or form. She is only making herself look bad. Please keep going, you really know a lot!

Churadogs said...

Aaron sez:"In e-mail correspondence, prospective sewer designers were ordered by the district to e-mail Gail as a primary contact for the district so she served as the proxy for the district as if she was appointed to screen projects.

That doesn't sound like a private citizen to me."

You use the phrase, "as if she was appointed . . ." As if . . .Unless Gail was officially appointed by the CSD to act as "intermediary" she remains a private citizen. Unless she was appointed by the CSD to act as "proxy" she remains a private citizen. The clarification you need has to come from the CSD. Did they vote on making her a representative or proxy? Was there any official act to make that so? If not, she's a private citizen. In the same way, Al Barrow has brought in experts, worked with the CSD to have them present their info and etc. Over the life of this project, there have been many ad/hoc committees, contact people, groups, etc. including the advisory group Richard discussed in another comment section (or this one?) served on prior to being elected, & etc. This does not give these people any official status. They're still private citizens.

Aaron sez:"The reason I'm so verbose about this particular subject is because I feel that the problems with the district really started when Gail became involved. "

On that we'll have to disagree. The problems with this district started with the formation of the CSD using the Better/Cheaper Ponds of Avalon plan. The the reason that was the start of the problem is because the System is set up in such a way that once you take that first fatal Tar Baby step, the System makes it almost impossible to back up and correct your original mistake. That's why this "do over" by the county is so critical -- that they get the Process right. That's what the community deserved from day one, and didn't get.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Ann writes about Gail: it depends on what the definition of is is.

Being officially appointed may or may not be related to acting in the role for which one should be officially appointed. If Gail were giving advice to the board and screening out board potential projects but was not appointed officially, Aaron is right.

The questions, Ann, are these ... First, was Gail's advice any more likely to receive a careful listen than the advice given by others? Second, was she given the responsibility or authority to do anything which would normally be handled by the board, staff or a committee appointed by the board during an open meeting?

If Gail both gave advice and was given any tasks, Aaron is right.

So then ... was Gail ever formally appointed to any committees, even ad hoc?

Sewertoons said...

To say the problems with the District began with creating the District didn't mean the problems ended there. Fine, creating the District to build a sewer didn't work - obviously - but the backlash to having to change the ponds to something else was indeed aided by Gail. A lot of us think the problems began before there was a District anyway.

You know perfectly well that we will never get a straight answer out of the Board as to Gail's role. Was she appointed - in the open - in front of the Board meeting - no. Did she function as an intermediary - YES. Was she asked to do so by the Board - YES.

Keep splitting them hairs Ann, but be careful. The hole you are digging yourself is getting so deep, it just might collapse on you.

Sewertoons said...

Shark, she was - Wastewater Committee.

Aaron said...

I've stated how Gail has been an intermediary for the district. We can just agree to disagree at this point.

I think this whole debate brings up the question about the role of the private citizen and how much they can get away with before meddling with elected officials and their process.

In my opinion, when you have someone fielding prospective sewer contractors and experts for the district, that really goes beyond the private citizen role. Granted, we live in a small unincorporated town, but still, we have an elected body that consists of people who were elected to be representatives of our community.

The problem with the post-recall board is that they focused on listening to one constituent, one private citizen instead of listening to the constituents they're suppose to represent including constituents who disagree with Gail's approach. The previous board incarnation did away with democracy in hopes of getting answers from a "certified" wastewater expert.

Oh, and Tom Murphy calls himself a "certified" wastewater expert too. Need I say more?

Ann, you can say Gail is a private citizen all you like, but the district was so dependent on this one private citizen, that private citizen was given a lot of power.

Even though she was part of the Wastewater Committee, that does not give her the privilege to serve as an intermediary for the district.

Let's give a better visual analogy. She was the Mark Hutchinson of Los Osos, but the problem was that she wasn't on the district's payroll (that can be up to debate in terms of the PZLDF suit).

You bring up the Ponds of Avalon plan. I think most of the people on the blog have conceded to the fact that the Solutions Group made a mistake, but the biggest mistake of them all happened in between the Solution's Group proposal and AB2701 being chartered into law. You have that huge gap of time to get things done right and have a viable system in place for Los Osos but that did not happen.

Whether or not you agree with the 2005 recall reasoning, the fact of the matter is that the board had a clear opportunity to buckle down and get the process rolling. Ann, you talked about all the lawsuits but none of the lawsuits attempted to prevent the board from moving forward. In fact, if they were to move forward by conducting all the steps that are legally required, some of the lawsuits would lose legal momentum and the plaintiffs would likely have to drop.

We cannot place the blame on the "better, faster, cheaper" motto/solution anymore now that the district -- since then -- had opportunities to do it right, but with Gail in the middle, that created a lot of obstruction.

Sewertoons said...

Aaron, Thank you. Beautifully put. If Ann cannot "get" the logic and truth in what you have written, shame on her. Obstruction is the exact, right word.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"The questions, Ann, are these ... First, was Gail's advice any more likely to receive a careful listen than the advice given by others? Second, was she given the responsibility or authority to do anything which would normally be handled by the board, staff or a committee appointed by the board during an open meeting?"

Now, there's a good question. The CSD for years has set up and relied on committees and sub committes of a variety of "private citizens" who pre-screened, and evaluated and looked at and dismissed and added and selected and brought their info to the Board & etc. If all of these private citizens are considered "intermediaries" then we've got a town full of them and Gail is only one among many. And the question, Was Gail officially given special designated powers hs to be answered by the members of the Board who were serving at the time or are still serving. For example, when the new Board members came on board, was she un-designated?, unintermediatarized? Or is she still just doing the same things she was always doing?

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Exactly,

Boards and congresscritters and all elected officials tend to listen to their supporters a bit more than to those who they feel are antagonistic or even those who just plain disagree.

It's human nature.

But what Aaron is charging happened is more than what naturally happens ... it is akin to the Cheney energy task force where the vice president brought in his favorite industry folks to help him contrive an energy policy and Cheney's office stonewalled the press when they asked who was there and what was discussed and how much the business interests set the agenda.

While Gail may have had an appointed role on a committee, she seems to have also had the earl of the boardmembers ... it was almost as if they asked her for advice on issues when they should have asked the LOCSD lawyer advice or asked the advice of the GM or the district engineer.

If Gail is the primary person they turned to for answers to questions staff members would normally address, there is something amiss. If there even is the appearance that Gail had more influence than she should have, there is the danger that she'll be Pandoraized and someone will start a "gailwatch" blog and every thing which has happened bad in Los Osos will be blamed on her.

Aaron ... you may use my idea if you like :)

Sewertoons said...

Never mind what Gail is doing now - she is marginalized and that isn't what this is about.

The point is, transparency and what the Lisa Board asked her to do. Were her duties delineated in a public setting and was a title given or tasks given to her in public, or was this all done in the back room? (Is there even a process in place to allow this? - I don't think so. The Board did not want the public to see what she was doing apparently. A "private citizen" asked to do public duty -- in private. She, deciding who "got" to the Board - sounds like an intermediary to me.)

Committee members are private citizens chosen by Board members in public. Each applicant has filled out a form, which is copied and available to the public for review. Committees are open to public attendance and public opinion. All business Committees do is out in the open. Their opinions are sorted out in the open and are relayed to the Board. These private citizens' opinions are made PUBLIC.

Fine, call them intermediaries, but the work Gail was asked to do was NOT run before the public, her findings and opinions were NOT given to the public for review. See the difference? Dragging in another entity to say, "see they are intermediaries too," doesn't change one bit the point Aaron is making about Gail. You just don't like his point.

Sewertoons said...

Shark, you wrote more quickly than I - I was addressing my post to Ann, and she was the post above me when I started - I'm not disagreeing with what you wrote one bit - I agree!!!

Sewertoons said...

I guess I would just clarify, while Gail was on a committee, and even Chair, the advice she gave wasn't vetted in front of the committee.

Aaron said...

I don't think I'm going to be doing any Ron-esque "-watch" blogs any time soon.

Critics of my opinion have dismissed my views as being "hateful" and "vindictive," but all I'm doing is pointing out the previous board incarnation's flaws so that future boards don't go down that road.

There are problems all around and I've invested enough energy in talking about Gail -- so I'll be heading back to the future.

Sewertoons said...

I was out in my garage, looking for a report for an upcoming committee meeting and I accidently ran across the handouts on the Thursday, October 18, 2007 CSD meeting. There is a 10-page single-sided report that says:

To: Board of Directors
From: LOCSD Staff
Date: October 18, 2007
Subject: Contingency Plan Discussion about possible options for Los Osos Wastewater Project, LOCSD AS Lead Agency
(actual capitalizations)

Below that there is a 3-point recommendation as to what the Board should do.Plus 9 pages of why.

My note says Gail's plan was presented as staff's and that the handout was "run out at the meeting" meaning there were no public copies of a "staff" report (all the other staff reports are available on the table for the public to pick up. Also strange, there was no masthead. Staff reports always carry the LOCSD emblem and Board info on the left side.) My note says this recommendation by "LOCSD staff" was never seen by District counsel, Mrs. Biggs.

In addition to this "staff" report, there was a 22-page double-sided report from the Wastewater Committee with its recommendations.

Gail - private citizen, ha-ha - masquerading as an intermediary now for STAFF!

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"It's human nature.:

You mean it's not something Taxpayer's Watch has to sue over? Gosh.

Richard LeGros said...

Gosh Ann,

Rest assured.......TW is only suing over the recall boards violations of law.

As TW believes in the US Constitution, TW would not attempt to deny the recall board's inalienable right to act stupidly.

-R

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Ann,

I presume you are telling us that TW was suing the post-recall LOCSD board because they chose to follow Gail's advice instead of paying attention to a wider variety of sources.