Pages

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Calhoun’s Can(n)ons for May 21, 2009

Aw, Gawd, Pullleeezzze Don’t Tell Mother Calhoun That She Has To Explain It All To You . . . Again

The terrible thing about the quest for truth is that you find it.
Remy de Gourmont

Actually, the epigram above is only partially correct. Sometimes you will find the truth, if you actually look. And sometimes you can work very, very hard to cover up the truth, burying it under a high load of Happy Horsepucky, only to discover it has its own path to the light and shows up anyway. Like a day later in a local newspaper headline.

About 10 days ago, the Board put the county’s top two administrators, CAO Dave Edge and his second in command, Gail Wilcox, on paid leave while they went into 10 hours worth of closed session huddling while discussing “anticipated litigation” and “significant exposure to litigation” – government speak for: “We’d better dump these people/problem or our behinds will get sued off.”

Meanwhile, the CalCoastNews.com blogsite posted a story claiming that “anonymous sources” claimed the issue was some sort of “sexual harassment” issue. This, of course, set off a barrage of speculation, bouncing from CalCoast to SLOTown’s Tribune to The New Times’ “Shredder,” and outraged replies that this was all baseless, un-sourced, scurrilous, sleazy rumor-mongering! Of course, “sexual harassment” speculation would pop up easily, given County government’s past history of hanky-panky at the civic center – County Auditor Paul Floyd, County Environmental Health Director, Jerry LeMoine, County Clerk/Recorder Mitch Cooney -- there was a time there in the late ‘90s when the place was one huge, embarrassing Animal House frat-fest.

Then Dave Edge was hired and suddenly heads were knocked together, departments reshuffled, sexual harassment training classes arrived, and for over 10 years, nary a peep about panties appeared in the headlines. There were other grumblings, but no threats of panties. Until now.

Then on May 19, the BOS met and the shoveling started. First, Dave Edge was allowed to speak. After the usual blandishments about his pride in his fellow employees, the honor of government service, and [now telling in hindsight] his efforts to act “. . . with compassion and concern for employees struggling with huge personal stress,” he noted that he welcomed a full investigation into whatever allegations were behind his dismissal, saying, “I have absolutely nothing to fear or hide,” while also acknowledging that that would be a waste of time since the deal had been done behind closed doors days ago and this “public” hearing was simply the Board “executing its discretion.”

Interestingly, Assessor Tom Bordonaro, during the public comment portion of the agenda item, spoke in favor of offering Edge a chance to have a full public hearing while Board Member Katcho Achadjian initially supported that notion. (Lacking the courage of his own convictions, and wishing to please the Board and join the majority, Katcho later said he wanted to vote “no” to the dismissal so Edge could have his hearing, but swiftly changed it to a “yes” so the Board could have a unanimous vote.) So, no hearings, no full disclosures, no investigation, no explanations.

Meanwhile, Boardmember Patterson confused anonymous blog comments on various blogsites with actual non-anonymous, sourced, signed blogs themselves and scolded the public not to pay any attention to anything found on any “blogs,” like nobody should return to CalCoastNews.com to see what they will continue to report? With a real news blackout and various officials clamming up, reporters and blog reporters alike will be busy over the next few weeks, digging. And since Edge was an at-will employee, his MOU grants him 8 months salary plus any accumulated holidays & etc. so he’ll walk away with about $237,000 worth of tax payer money. And the citizens will be correct if they feel they’re entitled to know just why they’re coughing up that amount of dough for their former CAO.

And shovel-wielding Chairman Gibson blandly assured the public that this is nothing more than the fact that the relationship between a CAO and the Board is a delicate and complex matter and when a Board seeks a different style or vision or different path, then it’s natural to chose a different CAO -- as if this were simply an abstract philosophical issue. Gibson made no mention of 10 hours of closed door sessions or “anticipated litigation” or “significant exposure to litigation,” or that this was a “sensitive situation” and that the “best interests” of the county demand this termination. “Significant exposure to litigation” is not simply a vision thing.

Thus endeth the hearing with nothing having been said that would begin to address just why the Board had put their two top executive officers on leave and now had just fired one of them. Instead, the only thing to be heard in the BOS chambers was the sound of shovels – digging and hurling, digging and hurling -- and in the background, the whicker of a horse.

The next morning the pony began emerging from the pile of pucky. Fired Edge declared to the Tribune that he had mentored Wilcox for the 10 years they had served together, he had counseled her through her struggles [“with huge personal stress,” perhaps?] and had bought her a self-help book by clinical psychologist Judith Sills, “Getting Naked Again: Dating, Romance, Sex, and Love When You’ve Been Divorced, Widowed, Dumped or Distracted.”

Apparently Ms. Wilcox filed an informal complaint of some kind, and, as Mr. Edge told the Tribune, he now believes he may have crossed some sort of line, he feels Wilcox has betrayed their mentor/protégé relationship and concludes that “he does not believe it wise and perhaps not possible for people of opposite sexes to develop personal friendships in the workplace.” Ms. Wilcox has not been heard from yet.

But Mother Calhoun is beyond annoyed. Back when the county government was awash with sexual harassment hearings, i.e. the pre-Dave Edge era, she wrote several columns outlining what county employees needed to do to protect their behinds. Clearly, nobody listened to Mother Calhoun’s Sage Advice For The Clueless, so here we go again:

1. Being a CAO is God’s way of saying that playtime with the children is over. It’s not your job to personally help your employees with huge personal stress. That’s what the Human Resources Dept. is for.

2. If you want a friend, get a dog. CAOs are a government’s version of the Medieval “Sin Eaters.” That’s why we pay them the big bucks and why their careers are nasty, brutish and very, very short.

3. Be aware that when you mentor someone, you nurse a viper at your vest. That’s not being mean, that’s simply the structure of the arrangement since mentorees are intended to replace their mentors. Sometimes it goes smoothly, often it doesn’t. You have been warned.

4. If your involvement with another employee crosses past professional cool and moves into murkier, very human waters, understand that that at any moment you will be on Carthaginian ground zero and the killing will commence. There will be no quarter given. Everything once benign will turn malignant. There will be no one left standing. Not even your accuser. Go look up the words “Pyrrhic Victory,” in the dictionary. Contemplate it well. You time in hell is about to commence. Mother Calhoun sends her deepest sympathy to all involved parties.

5. Every morning before leaving for work, look into the mirror and read yourself the Miranda Rights. Pay particular attention to the part about “. . . can and will be used against you in a court of law.” Now, go to work. Have a nice day.

6. And for the elected officials who shovel horse pucky and think the watching public is stupid enough to believe that “significant exposure to litigation” is another word for “philosophical, vision-thing differences of opinion,” let’s hope the voters remember that come election time.

Meantime, the taxpayers of a busted-budget county in a flat-broke state have just purchased a pony and a book worth $237,000, not to mention whatever other expensive shoes will soon drop as collateral damage fallout on this matter.

Luckily, the horse pucky that came along with all of this was free, as it usually is.

40 comments:

Watershed Mark said...

So, no hearings, no full disclosures, no investigation, no explanations.

...No surprise.

Churadogs said...

Uh, it's early yet. My epigram may yet come true.

Realistic1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shark Inlet said...

Perhaps the TED talk by Barry Schwartz on our loss of wisdom would be worth listening to w.r.t. Edge v. Wilcox v SLOCOBOS.

A little additional wisdom on the part of all three might have gone a long way.

Realistic1 said...

Just when I think I've heard it all from Ron Crawford...

When the story about David Edge's suspension broke, Ron immediately started theorizing on his blog that Edge was suspended because he must be at odds with the BOS over the sewer project. Now, Ron admits that he has no idea where Edge stood on the Tri-W project, but because Edge got an email from Pandora four years ago and replied "sorry I can't help you", he was being punished by the BOS for daring to cross Pandora.

Yesterday afternoon, following his termination by the BOS on Tuesday, Edge himself tells the Trib he was fired for inappropriate meddling in an subordinate's personal life. Straight from Edge's mouth. No filtering, no interpretation. "Here's why I was fired".

Ron should really patent a new game. "Six Degrees of Pandora Nash-Karner". To win, all players have to do is name every person that has ever received an email from Pandora and then identify in what way they can be linked to the "Great Tri-W Conspiracy"...

Great "journalism", Ron.

Unknown said...

...and he'll break his arm patting his back while shouting "I'm Invincible".... We should all then be so lucky as to see the liquid nitrogen suddenly pour over his body ala James Bond in Golden Eye...

Ron said...

[Note: I went to post this comment, and, all of a sudden, Blogger NOW says, "Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters." Bum-mer! So, I'm going to split it in two]

PART 1:

R1 wrote:

"When the story about David Edge's suspension broke, Ron immediately started theorizing on his blog that Edge was suspended because he must be at odds with the BOS over the sewer project."

Well, if you could read, what I actually wrote was:

"Is Edge's possible termination related to his position on the Los Osos wastewater project? I have no idea..."

R1:

"Now, Ron admits that he has no idea where Edge stood on the Tri-W project, but because Edge got an email from Pandora four years ago, he must have been part of the grand conspiracy..."

Again, no, not what I said at all.

But HERE's what I DID say:

"So, because he recuses himself from those (sewer) discussions, no one (at least no one from the media) knows where he aligns on the Los Osos wastewater controversy.

And, I've always been curious about that."

THAT is exactly what I said, and that is EXACTLY what I tend to find out.

Ann wrote:

"And shovel-wielding Chairman Gibson blandly assured the public that this is nothing more than the fact that the relationship between a CAO and the Board is a delicate and complex matter ..."

What I'm extremely curious to know, is what was the former CAO's relationship was with " shovel-wielding Chairman Gibson's" Parks Commissioner?

R1, I think you're mis-reading (not surprisingly) my point.

Here's my point:

1) Edge is very smart, 2) he knows local government in and out, 3) he's from Los Osos, and 4) and, I hear, he's familiar with SewerWatch, and that means that he knows everything that I know about Bruce Gibson's Parks Commissioner (and financial donor to Gibson's campaign), and if anyone knows what I know about Bruce Gibson's Parks Commissioner, and also has a shred of human decency, then that person is NOT going to be down with her act in Los Osos over the past 10-years-and-counting.

Like I wrote in my piece, that was Edge's local government and neighbors that she wanted "fined out of existence." That was Edge's $25 million that she and her buddies wasted on a mid-town "sewer-park" that no one wanted.

So, for my selfish little reasons, if there's a HUGE silver lining to all of this, it's that Edge no longer has to recuse himself from the sewer discussion, and I bet his takes on the subject are priceless.

I mean, c'mon. Yes, I understand Mother Calhoun's excellent point, but it's not like Edge went Elliot Spitzer or John Edwards, for god's sake. He bought Wilcox a self-help book by a clinical psychologist.

And wow, did Gibson seem to pounce on that -- even "questioned" Katcho when ol' K. was thinking about making it a 4-1 vote at Edge's "public execution"... that Gibson point-manned.

Ron said...

Part 2:

I guess all I'm saying, is, I've got a case of Heineken that says Edge didn't check the "mid-town" Tri-W site in the community survey.

And if you're a person of influence, and you're not on Bruce Gibson's Parks Commissioner's side, look the hell out. You get attacked, viciously.

Just ask Questa Engineering's, Norm Hantzche, former county engineer George Gibson, the majority of the voters from the 2005 recall election (that, upon hearing the election results, Bruce Gibson's Parks Commissioner immediately developed, and then implemented a strategy to have "fined out of existence"), Lisa Schicker, Julie Tacker, ME... the list just goes on and on and on.

Here's a lovely little link:

http://www.slocreek.com/karner_strategy_mail.txt -

"SCHICKER AND TACKER: Please do not refer to them as "women", let's not make a gender issue out of the campaign. You can refer to them as: CSD dissidents, CSD minority members, anti-project CSD members, CSD opposition leaders, etc"
-- Bruce Gibson's Parks Commissioner, August 9, 2005

Ah, what a sweet little sentiment.

I've seen that over, and over, and over again in Los Osos. And that's one of the milder examples.

What she did to Questa Engineering's Norm Hantzche, in 1998, after he showed that Nash-Karner's "better, cheaper, faster" project was inferior to the county's project in every way? Oh my lord.

I remember that vividly, because that's when I was the editor of The Bay News/Breeze. She shredded Hantzche to pieces, publicly. She went after his competency, his reputation, his.... everything. And, it turned out, Hantzche was 100-percent right.

Can't wait to hear Edge's sewer views, now that he no longer has to recuse himself.

THAT was the point of my piece, and it's a very, VERY interesting point, if you ask me.

By the way, if anyone's considering a run against Supervisor Gibson, you'll slaughter 'im. (Lisa? Wink. Wink.)

Realistic1 said...

So "theorizing" was the wrong word. I should have said "implying".

Just because you phrase that implication in the form of a question - it doesn't change what you were trying to say or do - to create a link between Edge's suspension and his position on the sewer project, something you have absolutely no evidence of and something Edge himself never says.

And if you had read my revised posting (two minutes later) you would have read:

"Now, Ron admits that he has no idea where Edge stood on the Tri-W project, but because Edge got an email from Pandora four years ago and replied "sorry I can't help you", he was being punished by the BOS for daring to cross Pandora.

Something else you have no evidence of.

Lastly, Lisa Schicker for Supervisor? Are you serious? BWA HAHAHAHA

Shark Inlet said...

Ron ... good joke!

It's been a long time since I heard anything as funny as the idea that Lisa would beat Bruce in a race for supervisor.


But, in case you weren't making a funny ... outside of Los Osos he would pummel her because she would be perceived as the one who screwed up a project and raised the costs for Los Osos and he would be perceived as the one who got it done.

From within Los Osos, Lisa might get a greater level of support, but I suspect she would pull 35% at best in a head-to-head with Bruce.

Bruce is pretty much in the middle of his district on the pro/anti growth issue and it would be difficult for someone who is perceived as more polarizing on that issue as being able to beat him. Either from the right or left, Bruce could claim the middle ground.


Bruce might be vulnerable to a Republican, moderate growth environmentalist business owner ... but not to Lisa.

Rick said...

I'm sorry... I don't see any fact-based nexus between Edge and the sewer. Is it there? I don't know. But not everything is about the sewer.

And I think it's apparent that Lisa is going to run for something.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

She wouldn't do as well as Judy Vick and Judy couldn't beat Bruce, couldn't get into the race. Lisa has done too much damage, from - "There was no plan" - to underwriting a bankruptcy. I hope for her own sake she does not run.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Besides, do we really want Gail behind the Supe chair?

Realistic1 said...

The Los Osos Five are viewed by anyone outside Los Osos as completely incompetent. The sewer debacle aside, they decimated fire and water reserves...money management was not exactly their forte.

Los Osos is just a small part of District 2, and while Lisa or Gail might garner some support from within the community, it would likely be a very small percentage. Certainly not enough to unseat Bruce.

Lisa appeared to crack under the pressure of being an LOCSD director - tears, tantrums, "I'm not well, I can't stay for the rest of the meeting..." Can you imagine how she'd react to the pressures of being a District Supervisor?

Alon Perlman said...

Sometimes it's two people's idea of what really happened and sometimes it's only one's.
Sometimes its a court of 12 and sometimes it's a court of millions.

Then there's a court of five

Ann's hitting this one in full stride

Realistic1 said...

"I'm sorry... I don't see any fact-based nexus between Edge and the sewer. Is it there? I don't know. But not everything is about the sewer."

Rick,

Of course there's nothing fact based but in Ron's world, EVERYTHING is about Pandora and the sewer.

And Ron, the point of your piece was not about hearing Edge's opinion on the sewer. It was about creating innuendo that Edge's situation was somehow related to Gibson's relationship with Pandora.

Realistic1 said...

Why else would you have said:

"I guess all I'm saying, is, I've got a case of Heineken that says Edge didn't check the "mid-town" Tri-W site in the community survey."

Hmmmmm?

M said...

Funny, when I read the story in NewTimes today, I read that Lisa Shicker had spoken on Edge's behalf and I knew right away he was a goner. I wondered what influence Pandora might have had.
Sincerely, M

Shark Inlet said...

Perhaps the only reason Lisa spoke up for him is because she read Ron's article and thought that Ron had conclusive proof that the reason Edge was being let go was because he opposed Pandora and, after all, Bruce (and Jerry Brown) will do anything that Pandora wants him to do. That's how things work in tinfoil hatland!

Churadogs said...

Alon sez:"Sometimes it's two people's idea of what really happened and sometimes it's only one's.
Sometimes its a court of 12 and sometimes it's a court of millions.

Then there's a court of five

Ann's hitting this one in full stride"

The can of worms is still wriggling, but here's a few other things to keep in mind: 1. If Edge is correct that the new Board wanted a new CEO (because they had a new vision-thing and wanted to go in another direction, oh, and also had some old scores to settle), then by creating this mentoring/harassment/buy a book issue, Edge handed the Board the sword with which to kill him. This is called "Guilty of Walking While Stupid." Happens often. Sigh. 2. In dispatching Edge, the county saved itself from significant legal danger AND set themselves up to deal with Wilcox, who is defanged (vis a vis any sexual harassment claims -- i.e. "see, we took care of the matter sumarily and rapidly" you have no basis to sue us) while buying themselves time to get rid of her safely while pretending they're merely doing the vision thing (after all, if they bring in a new CEO, what more natural than making sure the new "County Sin Eater" has his choice of second-in-command -- after all, it's all part of the glorious Vision Thing A NEW DAY!) oh, and the county will then also be out from under significant legal liability threats once again. Two with one blow, while the taxpayer gets to eat it all. Well played

Ron said...

Rick wrote:

"I'm sorry... I don't see any fact-based nexus between Edge and the sewer."

There is none... at least none yet. That's why, for the third time, I originally wrote:

"Is Edge's possible termination related to his position on the Los Osos wastewater project? I have no idea..."

Actually, and, again, for the third time, this was the point of my piece: There is ONE Edge/sewer fact: He no longer has to recuse himself from the sewer discussion. That's what I keep saying... over... and over... and over... again... and that's a very, very, very important point.

The stories he must have...

R1 wrote:

"Lisa Schicker for Supervisor? Are you serious? BWA HAHAHAHA"

In the next 2nd District Supervisor election, not only would Lisa Schicker mop the floor with Gibson, but you know else would? David Edge.

Here's why 1) Los Osos is the largest voting bloc (by far) in the 2nd District, 2) Pandora Nash-Karner is Gibson's Parks Commissioner, and 3) over 90-percent of Los Ososans didn't check the "mid-town" Tri-W site in their survey.

That spells D-O-O-M for G-I-B-S-O-N.

You know who else would mop the floor with Gibson?

Chuck Cesena, Steve Senet, or John Fouche.

And the only reason I'm not including Julie Tacker in there, is because of her relationship with Jeff Edwards. And that's nothing against Edwards. The only reason he comes into play, is because Edwards is a developer, and developers and the 2nd District don't mesh. If Edwards wasn't a developer, Julie would also stomp Gibson in the next election.

Heck, considering those three reasons I listed above, I could move to Los Osos and stomp Gibson in the next election, if I had any desire whatsoever to become a Supervisor, which I don't. Plus, I prefer my summers sunny.

Imagine, a 2nd District without Nash-Karner in an official position, AND Gordon Hensley's SLO Coastkeeper scam no longer working. Los Osos's washboard dirt road would smooth overnight.

Realistic1 said...

With regard to the BOS election... you really are delusional, Ron.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Ann writes,
"Two with one blow, while the taxpayer gets to eat it all"

What meal would we taxpayer be paying for if both had sued the County?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

I wonder who Ron's contacts are in Los Osos to give him such startling ideas on the next supervisors election?

It makes so much sense that someone who does not live here, attends no meetings or social events here, would have such a grasp of who might win the next election.

Gee Ron, you have such a huge following - it's just a shame that YOU don't want to run…

Ron said...

'toons wrote:

"I wonder who Ron's contacts are in Los Osos to give him such startling ideas on the next supervisors election? "

My "contacts" are my over-the-top-excellent reasoning skills... all you have to do is mix in a little logic, 'toons, and think it through.

"Gee Ron, you have such a huge following - it's just a shame that YOU don't want to run"

After I showed up at every debate, and simply said:

"Bruce Gibson's Parks Commissioner hatched, and then implemented, a 'strategy' (her word) to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence" just because the majority of the town's voters didn't want to build her wildly unpopular "sewer-park" in the middle of their beautiful coastal town, and THEN Bruce Gibson appointed her to the Parks Commission. Vote for me. Peace. Out."

My "following" would be friggin' HUUUUUUGE... all the way up to Cambria... just like it will be for any candidate that shows up at a debate, and says the exact same thing... over, and over, and over again.

But you're right, for once. I don't want to run.

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette wrote: "I wonder who Ron's contacts are in Los Osos to give him such startling ideas on the next supervisors election?"

Maybe Mr. Dean (sorry, I forgot his last name) can help you with the logic part, Lynette.

Shark Inlet said...

As reasons that Lisa would beat Bruce, Ron says that Los Osos is the largest voting bloc and that 90% checked the "out of town if it doesn't cost us more" box on the recent survey.

First, while Los Osos has a population that is slightly larger than Morro Bay + Cayucos, one shouldn't forget the folks in Cambria and in the Laguna Lake corner of SLO either. Second, had Lisa run for a LOCSD board seat this last go-round, she would have done worse than Karen because the public views her as not having done a good job in her role of president of the LOCSD. Fairly or unfairly, she would get less than half the votes from Los Osos. Outside Los Osos, people know her less well and would be even more likely to view her as the one who screwed things up and Bruce as the one who fixed her mess.

And ... on the 90% issue ... it is not obvious that this would play to her advantage any more than his. I think, Ron, that you see too many issues thru TriW goggles.


You're a funny one, though!

Your President said...

David Edge:
I would encourage a full and public investigation and review of this matter. Unlike (some) I have absolutely nothing to (hide or fear), or hide from that kind of review. I think it would serve me very well. For (the rest), I’m not so sure.

Who are the (some)and(the rest)and what would they have to (hide or fear). Grand Jury Time?

Katcho compromising his convictions at the behest of Chair Gibson.
Katcho: I decided not to support it (the motion) simply because Mr. Edge is the person on file if we want to put it that way, and he wants an investigation then so be it.
Gibson : Your vote then …
Katcho: I… but I am regretfully going to vote yes just to show unanimity among us and move forward for all the good reasons that possible don’t exist.

Gibson setting a standard and process that the board should apply to him as well.
Gibson: There comes a point we seek a different vision, or we seek a different style, or we seek a different outlook. It’s important for the good of the organization and for the good of the residence that it serves, that the board has the option of moving to seek new leadership and to seek a new path.

Let's have a Supervisors vote to see if Gibson should continue to being Chair.

Your President said...

Ron, Ron, Ron. The post Recall LOCSD Board fail miserably in forwarding a project because the were so easily distracted, politically naive and they fired and hired the wrong people. As Steve Senet said,"We bargained," as a way of saying they lost the project. You can't run these types of failures as candidates for this type of job. Get real.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Ron, the people weren't necessarily "rejecting Tri-W," they were TOLD that they would GET something CHEAPER! We can all see how that worked out. Or maybe YOU can't - you still have not explained to us how $200 a month is more expensive than $250 a month.

TCG said...

Lisa Schicker sure left our CSD better than she found it!! Can you imagine how much damage she could do as a County Supervisor, playing with much larger sums of money and impacting many times more people.

Ron said...

'toons wrote:

"Ron, the people weren't necessarily "rejecting Tri-W,"..."

You know, everyone whines about that community survey, and the amount of respondents, and what can, or can not be gleaned from it, but there is ONE, undeniable truth that came out of it:

"Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location..."
-- Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey, March 27, 2009

And if you tiny handful of Anonaloser-Tri-W-Honk-types want to stick your head in the sand when it comes to that quote, well, there ya go.

All I can say is, the other 91-percent (at least) will see you come election time.

In the meantime, chew on this:

"More delays mean the LOCSD may be fined out of existence. We’d lose local control."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, from Save the Dream Newsletter #4, March 25, 2005

"I hope the CSD gets fined out of existence..."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, Sept. 28, 2005

"Pandora Nash-Karner - Chair, Representing District 2 for Supervisor Bruce Gibson."
-- SLO County Parks Commission web siteGood luck in 2010, you tiny, tiny handful of Tri-W-Honks.

Ron said...

Damn, that "no line-break after html tag" thingee got me again... VERY annoying:

"Pandora Nash-Karner - Chair, Representing District 2 for Supervisor Bruce Gibson."
-- SLO County Parks Commission web site -

Good luck in 2010, you tiny, tiny handful of Tri-W-Honks.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

You've got to admit that even if the RWQCB didn't fine the LOCSD out of existence, the post-recall board did it themselves and then control of the project parameters moved out of town. Maybe had the RWQCB acted more quickly we would now be in a better place cost-wise.

As Richard pointed out elsewhere, time is the problem here. The longer it takes before construction starts, the more we'll end up paying.

Unknown said...

Shark, since Ron doesn't live or pay property taxes in Los Osos, he really has no say... He backed the decisions of the post-recall failed Board, he won't look into the PZLDF - CSD lawsuit "agreement"... He's not even a "legitiment" journalist...never has been, never will be... He can't even get the Inquirer to pickup any of his crap... He's just a hack trying to be a blogger....

Anonymous said...

Maybe they canned Edge because he was making far too much money for too little work. Perhaps someone else could be hired for 1/2 the money?

I know what the payoff is to get rid of him but what about the pension?

This needs a crawdaddy investigation.

GetRealOsos said...

Jon,

Edge was going to retire in July.

Why the big scandal a month before?

Answer: Gibson didn't want the MWH story out (Lisa's story) -- not in the Trib, and that Edge story knocked it off.

Shark Inlet said...

GetReal has a great question ... why now when the cost of firing Edge (likely) more expensive than waiting for him to retire?

I don't believe that Edge said he would retire in July, but certainly within the next year or so.

Perhaps they wanted to avoid being named party to a lawsuit for not taking action once they found out there was a complaint.

Whatever it was, I really doubt that even a truly deceptive would vote unanimously to keep an old story out of the newspapers. Hill and Mecham would certainly not vote for such nonsense.

Nope, that sort of crazy-talk is like saying that OJ must have been set up because, you know about how much LA cops hate sports heroes and how much they would want to frame an innocent man.

The tinfoil hat brigade has arrived!

GetRealOsos said...

Oh Shark,

Please explain then, WHY, the Trib hasn't printed one word on the MWH story.

Lisa submitted some pretty hefty stuff and the New Times covered it, as well as CalCoastNews.

Why play out all the drama with Wilcox and Edge now when Edge was going to retire soon?

P.S. I like that you've added OJ to your comparisons of cars and fruit.

Shark Inlet said...

GetReal,

There are at least three reasons why the Trib hasn't printed anything about "the MWH story" as you phrase it.
1 - There is no story ... they looked into it and found ... like Oakland, there was no there there (this is 'Toons explanation)
2 - The likely amount of research to put together a coherent story that explained all the facts, along with the amount of print space necessary would be far too much to justify the time (this would be Ron "tinfoil hat" Crawford's explanation)
3 - The Trib has realized that outside of Los Osos no one cares about the deep background of various players in sewer politics and they know that few inside Los Osos do either. Essentially there are maybe 200 people in Los Osos who would care and even if 100% true, it just doesn't justify the effort (my explanation).

Seriously, do you think that I would know why the Trib didn't do the story you wanted them to do? What would make you think that I know that?


When there are two (or more) possible explanations that both match the facts, nearly always the simpler explanation is right. You are asking us to believe that Gibson convinced others on the board to terminate Edge at great cost simply because they want to stop some sort of newspaper story which was unlikely to be written anyways. The Edge termination was a combination of driving while stupid (as Ann suggests) plus a remarkable lack of common sense plus a desire to "follow the rules" to avoid litigation.

While you might be right in your theory, you shouldn't expect anyone to take you seriously when you present the far-fetched theory without any evidence for it.