Pages

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

O.K. What’s The Tribune Up To This Time?

Uh, so what’s up with the Monday, June 22nd Tribune headline, “Former official says Osos sewer project director has conflict of interest.” Complete with picture of LOWWP director Paavo Ogren and former CSD director, Lisa Schicker. And a general discussion about the official complaint plus documents Schicker sent in to the BOS concerning the creating of the engineering short list for the Los Osos sewer project, among other issues.

All old news. Already been in the headlines. County Counsel Warren Jensen’s already said he’s working on a report in response. Old news. So what’s it doing back on the front page? What’s the Tribune up to? Did they read though the pile of documents Schicker sent along with the complaint? Did it seem to support a level of concern versus a dismissive snort? Is this Tribune story now some kind of prod to County Counsel that somebody may be paying attention?

Well, it’s all very odd, if you ask me. All Caesar’s Wife, and possible illegalities that aren’t really illegal, maybe. (If you violate a law and it isn’t found out until the statute of limitations has passed, have you broken the law? It’s the old tree falling in the forest routine?) And if you did something that was, well, technically “illegal” and are now legally in the clear (statute of limitations) can you claim that you’ve done nothing improper? Or would it be fairer to say, “Well, yeah, we screwed up technically, but it was o.k. since nobody took any money and went to France. The violation was merely a technical time saver and did nothing to violate the spirit of what was supposed to happen anyway.”

Well, to add to the discussion, below is a copy of an email sent by Lisa Schicker to Warren Jensen and BOS for the record, concerning this upcoming report. Published with permission.

Meantime, here’s an idea: Why doesn’t the BOS hire a totally independent “auditor” and have them go over the contract procurement process and bidding selection process and issue a report on whether this was all done correctly and fairly. Wouldn’t that be a better way of restoring confidence that this whole design-build-bid-contract deal was done right?

Subject:
Your report on the Public Works Contract procurement process and design build process for Los Osos
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:41:13 -0700
Good Morning Warren:

I am just checking in with you, I wanted to see how the report is coming along - there seems to be a lot of issues facing the county right now, and I think the conflict of interest/violation of design build/contract procurement process that many of us in Los Osos are concerned about - has far-reaching implications County-wide.

Before you complete your report, I want to make sure that these points of concern are addressed.

Our concerns relate to the promise that Los Osos taxpayers receive a fairly bid project, which includes an unbiased and legal contract procurement process. Evidence and activities thus far have occurred that suggest that there is trouble with these processes. My concerns are that the design build process as described by state law, the contract procurement process and a fair presentation of all options and costs has now been circumvented and tainted by the personal and business relationships of key people directing these efforts - there is history of this in Los Osos and at the County to support these concerns with Los Osos projects and other projects, too.

As part of your report and evaluation of the past facts about Paavo, MWH, Wallace and Lou Carella, I want to know if the current county project team (Paavo Ogren, Lou Carella, et al) have completed conflict of interest statements and if they have provided disclosure of all potential incompatible activities, including the disclosure of their prior business relationships in both public and private roles.

Have the previous business relationships been disclosed prior to putting former business partners (Carella/Carollo and Wallace) directly on a panel, tasked with interviewing, reference checking and short listing engineering teams for a very lucrative county contract - with their own former business associates (MWH?) - and including Paavo Ogren sitting on the appeal panel?

I believe the documentation submitted and your own County records demonstrate that the same people, working both for our county government and at the same engineering firms, have been "feeding" each other work, trading positions and hiring each other now for 10+ years, using the taxpayers' money to do so - in Los Osos (CSD and County), and on the Lopez Lake dam retrofit project, among others......

Of course it is legal to work on projects together with reputable firms, but if there is financial interest and former business relationships, they must be disclosed per the Sherman Act. Because many of these jobs have gone way over bid, increasing 100%, such as Lopez Lake, (when including contract amendments and construction change orders), citizens are rightfully concerned.

Since the County is responsible for using the peoples' money for these contracts that are being made among prior business partners, and there is plenty of evidence to show this, then at least some of the questions that your report needs to answer is,

Have all potential incompatible activities among the former business partners (Paavo Ogren, currently County Public Works Director (formerly of Canon and Wallace firms), Lou Carella, formerly of MWH, RMC and Carollo) and Wallace (previously employed by the County) been previously disclosed - before the contract procurement process was approved or before the design build process was allowed to accept costly change orders? Contract change orders are typically not allowed with design build contracts, that was the advantage of going that way, to guarantee that costs would be capped. These firms are known for amending their work numerous times, so contracts that cost very little up front, end up costing a bundle! (see my files submitted on MWH billing practices)

Is there a conflict of interest due to the relationships among the former business partners (Ogren, MWH, Carella and Wallace)? Have all firms completed conflict of interest and incompatible activities statements? Can the public review these statements?

In light of what we now know, is it legal to allow these former business partners to interview and sit on the appeal panel when interviewing their former business partners, who are competing with others for County Contracts?

How is fair competition assured in this type of environment - how are the taxpayers served best?

These are just some of the issues that concern me, I look forward to reading your report.

Despite what others may think or say about me, it has never been my intention to derail a project, but only to improve it -to deliver the most environmentally preferred, technically sound, affordable project for our town - I stand behind these words with dedicated effort, action and participation in the process for many years now. I hope you understand why these issues I bring before you are so important to reaching this goal.

Thanks very much from Lisa

59 comments:

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Ann,


Maybe a better question is what Lisa Schicker is up to this time?

While Lisa states "...it has never been my intention to derail a project, but only to improve it -to deliver the most environmentally preferred, technically sound, affordable project for our town......"

EXACTLY HOW is her current complaint going to achieve such goals? HOW is her complaint going to result in an environmentally and technically superior project that is affordable? Until she states clearly and concisely HOW her complaint will realize her statement, the complaint is hollow and suspect too.

Just saying that the process has to be 'fair' or 'transparent' does not mean that the process has not been so.

Additionally, who exactly declares that the current process has not been (or the past process for that matter) has been 'clean'? Lisa? Julie? Who? While the County could bring in a 'third party' to oversee the process, all this hand-wringing only wastes time, money and brings us ever closer to losing our sole water source while waiting for the WWTF so direly needed.

Lastly, Lisa's own credibility IS at issue and relevant concerning the complaint.

It is relevant that she has a history of committing perjury (lying) UNDER OATH on Declarations she submitted to the Superior Court (re: the TW lawsuit).

It is relevant that Lisa has a history of conspiring with others who submitted Declarations to back up her perjury in order to hide the truth from TW, the Superior Court and the citizens of Los Osos.

It is relevant that her own history of failing to address her complaint's issues when she had the power, money and fiduciary responsibility as a LOCSD Board President to do so; and could have resolved all of her complaints back in 2005-2006.

It is an issue that Lisa, who has included in her complaint (and for the ‘record’) LOCSD resolutions and Complaints officially filed with the DA, the AG, the US-EPA, and the SOCIETY OF ENGINEERS to investigate; BUT HAS PURPOSELY OMITTED THE OFFICIAL RESPONSES issued by the THOSE AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS. The official responses are a critical part of the 'record'; and clearly explain the Complaint's lack of merit.

-R

Don said...

Credibility? You have got to be kidding.
What Richard LeGros forgot to tell the voters before he helped blow the $20 million in sewer bonds funds is that Richard was sued for fraud when he sold a lot in Paso Robles. Although asked directly, he failed to disclose to the buyers that there were major costs for water main and street improvements that had to be paid before anything could be built on the lot. The courts found fraud---but as a man of his word who can be trusted-----yep he ducked out---He filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy (straight liquidation) and escaped more than $225,000 in debts, including his liability to the buyers of his Paso Robles lot.

Richard has no credibility.
Consider that in 1993 Richard LeGros made just $6,260 as an architect. In 1994, he made $8,688 as an architect. Yet after serving as CSD director, in 2005, Richard made enough to be able to live in a house valued at $1.4 million located at 2812 Rodman Drive.

Yes, since being tossed off the CSD -no even before the 2005 election---he has been busy with taxpayers watch which has worked tirelessly to bankrupt the district through the partnering with contractors to freeze funding and file lawsuits that haven’t added a dime to benefit the taxpayers. MWH provided at least $10,000 in donations. I suspect a full disclosure of his business connections is of interest to the community and especially the IRS.

Want to know about Stan or Gordon?

Richard LeGros said...

Don,

We have all heard from you before under several different non de plumes...Conspiracy Boy comes to mind.

Meanwhile, your sad attempt to deflect from the issues raised do nothing to add to the discussion.

Here are the issues;

1. The validity of Schicker's Complaint.
2. Discussing Schicker's inability to articulate (and justify) how her complaint furthers her 'statement'
3. Explaining Schicker's intentionally filing of an incomplete 'record' that omitted critical documents that directly pertain to the complaint; omitted dcuments that show the complaint to be without merit.
4. Overlooking valid questions concerning Schickers credibility; and question her motives too.

Any comment on the issues?

-R

PS: Do not be so sure that the TW lawsuit will not result in returning large sums of money to the Los Osos taxpayer.

PPS: As for your myopic (abet wild-eyed), untrue and specious accusations, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Mike said...

If "Don" is so concerned (apparently he keeps dossiers on all Los Osos citizens) about Richard, maybe he should share a little about Ms.Schicker's "credibility"...Isn't she, as one person used the term, a 'public servant'...???

Doesn't she work for CalTrans...??? just how much time off has she taken to attend all the meetings and has CalTrans paid her for all that time off...??? Is she still using CalTrans e-mail and phones to fight her never-ending complaints...??? Thats our taxes she continues to waste...!!!!

There are several "complaints" the community has against the actions of Ms.Schicker... she isn't a little angel nor community spokesperson...

Churadogs said...

Hmmm, no discussion about the material IN the complaint? Isn't that the issue, not Richard or Lisa or Don or anybody?

Watershed Mark said...

Ann,
Mice love the poop from the elephant that is part of this circus.
The complaint is focused on the elephant trainer and mice are afraid of humans.

Looks to me that there will be results the mice aren't going to LIKE.
I appreciate your putting Lisa's letter to Warren on line. It makes such a wonderful addition to the LOSTDEP study process...

It will be nice when someone answers the question about; why vacuum was never studied.
There is still plenty of time and energy to find the problem and fix it...or continue to study it. Unintended consequences an all…

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

Let use look at the 'documents' in the Complaint:

1. A majority of the documents are newspaper or blog articles from the Tribune, the New Times, The Rock, the Bay News, Cal Coast News, and the News-Press. In legal proceedings, or as valid data in legal complaints, such articles are only hearsay; and as such carry no value whatsoever.

2. There are many letters and emails included that are directly from Ms. Schicker herself; or responses from the County to those emails. Her letters and emails only make allegations without offering up any proof to back up the allegations. The County's responses are clear regarding the lack of proof.

3. Ms. Schicker has included several letters dated 2005-2006 from the LOCSD to MDW. Those letters make serious allegations against MWH; again without proof.

MS. SCHICKER HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR THE 'RECORD' THE RESPONSE LETTERS FROM MWH TO THE LOCSD CORRESPONDENCE. Those letters are a critical part of the record, and should be given to the County for analysis. Additionally, those letters clearly outline why the LOCSD complaints are without merit.

4. Ms. Schicker has included several Formal Complaints (with corresponding LOCSD resolutions) letters dated 2005-2006 from the LOCSD to the SLO-DA, the AG, the US-EPA, and the Society of Engineers. Those complaints & resolutions make serious allegations against MWH; again without proof.

MS. SCHICKER HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR THE 'RECORD' THE RESPONSE LETTERS FROM THOSE ORGANIZATIONS TO THE LOCSD. Those letters are a critical part of the record, and should be given to the County for analysis. Additionally, those letters clearly outline why the LOCSD complaints are without merit.

5. Ms. Schicker’s cherry-picked legal codes, etc, are not relevant to the actual events; hence her claims of illegal activities are moot.


In all, Ms. Schicker has purposely omitted critical documents that are germane to the complaint; documents which would also invalidate the complaint. The omission of those documents just shows that Ms. Schicker has no interest in a complete and truthful 'record'. As she has omitted these documents, it does raise the questions as to her motivations and truthfulness for omitting them.

Again, Ms. Schicker has made statements as to her motivation(s) for filing the Complaint. (See my first post above) She has failed to clearly articulate just how her complaint will result in an 'environmental and technically superior project' that is 'affordable'. While her 'statement' sounds just wonderful, they are just hollow words. Her actions have not resulted in those goals; in fact her actions HAVE DONE THE EXACTLY OPPOSITE.

-R

Mike said...

Thank you Richard for your succinct answer to Ann's concern about any discussion of the "material IN the complaint..."

Don said...

It is Richard’s habitual deflection from the real issues that should be of concern to everyone, and that is exactly what I addressed in my post. Having posted here with my name, I’m not conspiracy boy. Documented facts on Richard's past (available to anyone who wants to look over court documents) is because he raised the credibility of the messenger to ignore the facts. As credibility this was at the heart of Richards point, his group of associates requires close scrutiny. Both Gordon and Stan credibility are fair game. Richard has proven he has a personal ax to grind, and I and many others are weary of his use of the community to continue to grind away. He has had his personally motivated lawsuits, the water board fines, the costly dissolution, frozen district funds, and finally bankruptcy. All which have cost us taxpayers millions, achieved nothing, and absolutely will not return a dime to the district.

To Richard’s questions:
(1. The validity of Schicker's Complaint.)
The complaint is considered valid by both the DA and the County Counsel and other agencies. What action is warranted is still being decided.
(2. Discussing Schicker's inability to articulate (and justify) how her complaint furthers her 'statement')
The complaint is justified. To my knowledge how well she articulated the complaint is wholly irrelevant to the law.
(3. Explaining Schicker's intentionally filing of an incomplete 'record' that omitted critical documents that directly pertain to the complaint; omitted dcuments that show the complaint to be without merit.)

A)The completeness of a complaint is subjective, and has nothing to do with validity, or the duty of the agency to investigate the complaint.
B) Richard cannot know intent or motive, and investigations look at the facts presented when determining if the complaint should be investigated.
(4. Overlooking valid questions concerning Schickers credibility; and question her motives too.)
Richard,when laws are broken the one breaking them is put under the spotlight. For example, laws were violated in the execution of the MWH contract by Paavo Ogren’s direction.

We can discuss Richard and others credibility, motives, and even their personal benefits in the actions have taken against the community and the former board members. But I say, let the investigators and public review the evidence, and ask questions of those who can provide legitimate answers to the real questions and wait for some legal conclusions. Tiresome is the spin, the half truths, and outright lies Richard has been posting to this site far too long.

The investigators are obligated to review what Schicker dug up and is adding to, but she is not required to play the prosecuter. the complaint, however presented imperfectly opened the door for review and investigation of all the documents, resources, and information available to the county, state and federal folks concerning county contract procurement within the frame of the past contracts. More is surfacing from the investigation that corroborates the Schicker complaint.
In the public contracting arena, a cartel of favored consultants and interesting contractor connections with top county personnel, and elected, with the backdrop of employment history and curious actions by Paavo Ogren are unacceptable and likely illegal.

Mike said...

Didn't Schicker "Sole Source" the CSD legal council to her or was it Gail's personal lawy firm...??? ...and wasn't the Temporary GM a Sole Source contract also...????

Just asking as the pre-recall team didn't Sole Source anything as I recall...

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

Don,

Can you provide any documents pertaining to court records regarding Richard LeGros?

Richard LeGros said...

Aaron,

I can provide you with whatever you wish; Nothing to hide here. In fact, contact me when you are ready to drop on by and we'll have a chat.

-R

Watershed Mark said...

Richard,
Why did you clear cut Tri-W while delaying your removal from office?

Alon Perlman said...

R&D
You are both right,
What follows is pure speculation; I’m not a lawyer but I did dress up as one Halloween long ago.
County council Jensen in exercising due diligence will do as follows. Re the complaint and documentation.
1. Direct a staffer to Compile all documents rearrange them create an index and cross-reference it.
2. Split the addendum and all documents that are submitted as a stack and as attachments.and reorganize
3. Examine each document and obtain all missing relevant documents referenced for Discovery
4. Wait till research is concluded. Note; This is the main reason for a delay (other than David-Gail-Gate, and this little thing called a County budget)
5. Compare the referenced submitted documents and statements to the statements in the un-submitted documents (Richard L.’s list above)
6. County council may then use judgement as to citing documents not submitted, in his response.
7. Since documents not submitted need to be reviewed but do not necessarily be referenced or responded to by council (council is not responsible to add to claimant’s discovery, unless it is in the interest of the county to do so)
8. After a brief and concise definition of what “is” is, (thanks Ann) words will appear which will include or not include: “without merit”, “further review”, “cannot be determined at this time”, “unsubstantiated”, “at this late date”, “further action”, “submitted to authorities”.
9. Papers will be thrown on porches, Emails will fly, Bloggz will Buzz, tongues will wag, feelings will be hurt.
10. Unknown
11. Los Osos gets a sewer

Mike said...

Nice Alon... now if Schicker's "Complaint" is found to be without substance, should she be required to pay for the staffer's time to compile/research/present....???? Afterall, the "Complaint" would then fall under the "trying to create another possible and costly delay"....

Now, should she actually "win" her case, she is in essence, sueing to remove Ogren, MWH, Carella and Wallace from the project...

Should she not "prove" her case, she would be taking County resources to defend against her "complaint" and she would appear to be libeling some reputable folks and companies... Let's hope she is not just wasting the taxpayers dollars on her campaign to further delay any sewer...

Alon Perlman said...

I forgot
12. A lot of (some)people will be disappointed.
(Jeffery Young, Esq., to Sam Blakesley, Assemblyman on the AB2701 "compromise".

franc4 said...

Mr. LeGros,

....."me thinks you do protest too much."
A perfect example of someone who makes alot of noise to cover his own inadequacy. You surely must admit, you (Stosh and Gordy) had a perfect opportunity to do a great service for your community, but you chose to "serve" folks who would best "serve" y'all.
(1M+ home???) In short, YOU SCREWED UP, ROYALLY !!
...as for Mike....he is a big ZERO! He has never had an original thought of his own, only echoing Richy, continually worried about Ms. Schickers' employment at Cal-Tran...as if he were signing her pay check. He doesn't handle rejection very well, does he? First, being rejected by Julie and then not being able to be employed by Cal-Tran. Loser, personified.

Mike said...

franki....are you saying Schicker can file as many complaints as she can slap together and that the County should have to spend tax dollars defending her many, many complaints...??? Just when would you draw the line between a valid complaint and just another vindictive form to further delay the sewer....???? Of course, since YOU don't live in SLO County and pay no property taxes here, you can blather on with no consequence...

franc4 said...

Mike....even though you are so blind to things and trying to explain stuff to you is useless, I will lower myself to reply.
"are you saying Schicker can file as many complaints as she can slap together and that the County should have to spend tax dollars defending her many, many complaints...??? Just when would you draw the line between a valid complaint and just another vindictive form to further delay the sewer....???? Of course, since YOU don't live in SLO County and pay no property taxes here, you can blather on with no consequence..."
Just because you and your spokesperson (Richy) think (hope) her complaints are "not valid" don't make it true.
....and why all of a sudden you are so worried about your "tax dollars"? Where were you when Ricy, Stosh and Gordy were blowing the 20M+ you gave them to play with?
...and why do you keep insisting that Ms. Schicker is "delaying the sewer"? Did she ever sayshe wants the sewer delayed? If you could get your head out of your septic tank, you would see what she is and has always done and is still doing, is fight against the POLITICAL CORRUPTION that exists in you county.
....oh yes, about wasting your "tax dollars". Remember your favorite TWs' lawsuits and all the good they have accomplished? Why no complaints about that from you?
By the way, how much did you get for the computer you stole from MWH...or is that the computer you are currently using to cause hate and discontent?
PS....how do you know what "consquence" I endure?

Watershed Mark said...

MIKE, I don't know who frank4 is but you must admire their "wit".
Even if you are a cretin.

Shark Inlet said...

Richard,

At face value, Lisa's complaint is essentially asking Paavo to be taken out of the loop decision-wise, so that MWH won't benefit from his decisions which she believes will be biased towards their services.

Presumably she believes that this will save us money.

I do have to say, however, that her "evidence" seems to be somewhat like Ron's "proof" ... nearly entirely self-referential.

Furthermore, even if she is right, I don't believe that getting someone else in charge at this stage will help reduce the costs in any way. Even if we went back to square one to avoid the Paavo bias and even if there were a cheaper solution, the inflation associated with starting over would likely swamp any savings.

Then there's the whole "environmentally preferred" thing ... in my mind, preserving the natural resource of our aquifer would be toward the top of any reasonable definition of environmentally preferred. Maybe she disagrees and cares more about STEP versus gravity ....

Churadogs said...

Richard sez:"you forget that Ms. Schicker's/the LOCSD's complaint has ALREADY BEEN INVESTAGATED BACK IN 2005-2006 by the DA, the AG, the US-EPA, and the Society of Engineers; all of whom found nothing improper or illegal."

I thought the DA said that backdating a contract was illegal but since the statute of limitations has run out there was nothing he could do about it. That's different from saying "nithing improper or illegal"has been done, isn't it?

and Alon? Bwahahahahah. Let the parsing and weaseling begin.

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,
Vacuum collection small diameter directionl drilled pipe using 3 "energy stations" is much less expensive than the con-gravity having 22 "energy stations" so technology selection will control pricing more than inflation.

Vacuum also doesn't leak like con-gravity because it is sealed and the system is under a vacuum. DOH!

FOGSWAMP said...

Ms Shicker's complaint related to Bruce Buell and Paavo Ogren's felonious criminal act of backdating aa contract under the guise of "unfinished business" with MWH has a lot of credibility.

They were saved having to defend the charge by the statute, however "mayb"e the "Satute of Frauds and Contract Law" as it relates to contracts that cannot be completed within one year still runs.

Why did the contract have to be back-dated? Why would they expose themselves to a felony charge?
Was it to ensure that MWH got paid for jump-starting the project?

Even the California State Contracting Manuel states that no contractor should start work until receiving a copy of the formerly approved contract.

danbleskey said...

The Statute has not run on the Civil side of the MWH complaint. It is delayed in Bankruptcy Court.

Also the criminal action statute for Fraud is what, three years. So when this was looked at how does equitable tolling fit in regarding the administrative investigation? And if the DA ignored the crime, what accountability does the DA have? Where is the Grand Jury on this?

FOGSWAMP said...

Dan asked "Where is the Grand Jury on this"?

I understand some have appproached the Grand Jury and were turned down.

I think you're right, 3 years on Fraud.

I understand that many Statutes of Limitation embrace the discovery rule. Also that in long running, undiscovered fraud the Statute of Limitations may be tolled, as you stated.

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 337.15 is a good example of the Statute of Repose. It imposes a 10 year limit on bringing a cause of action. It begins to run on completion of development rather than point of discovery.

Watershed Mark said...

Will Warren illuminate, subjugate or continue the conflict of interest?
I wonder what "sorry, I forgot his last name" Lynette would say? Naw not really...

MIKE never answered any questions...

FOGSWAMP said...

danblesky

I guess our DA has declared San Luis Obispo County a "backdating" enforcement-free zone.

Don said...

Yes, I have the documentation on Richard’s fraud and avoiding his legal and ethical responsibility. I asked him in 2002 and this was hidden, and he later refused to disclose this publically, so I have to question his new found openness.

The record on sole sourced contracts by Richard/Stan/Gordon’s Board is available by PRR. It is replete with sole sourcing, but that in its self does not make it illegal. I believe that BWS was hired by the Schicker board to specifically address the validity of the voters passage of Measure B, and use it as a shield from the time schedule order (TSO) fines proposed in the water board ACL. Remember emails from Briggs promising Richard (TW) he’d get them out before the new board could even be seated? I also recall a RFP for services of an attorney, and open recruitments for GM.

Richard and the taxpayer watch associates have used work product developed with taxpayers’ money to file numerous lawsuits that have cost us taxpayers directly, the dissolution costs thousands of dollars to defend, and the bankruptcy resulted from TW work to freeze sewer funding to keep a project by Ripley from moving forward. I believe based on the counter-productive actions by Richard he has to answer to the motive questions and 3 more wasted years. I believe, as Franc and Shark that he could have helped get the project built by assisting the post recall board through the October 2005 Blakeslee compromise. The project today is after all pretty close to the same, and we taxpayers have had to spend $7 million dollars to get there. As my friend Shirley has said, “There is plenty of blame to go around” I have seen all the nasty remarks and Richards TW lawsuit against the five directors, but Gordon, Stan and Richard should be ashamed they could not get over their personal wounds to help a project to succeed for the sake of the community. Bigger men would have made it succeed.

Now about the complaint: No matter how poorly formed or organized evidence is, or how distasteful the motives of the complainant may be, law enforcement officers are trained to sift through the evidence, and seek corroborating facts and ascertain if there is a crime. If the body of evidence is insufficient, the complaint is likely not sustained, and the case can be dropped. If additional facts come to light subsequent to the complaint, the case is reopened. To attack the one bringing the complaint is counter to everything our legal system stands on. I appreciate some recognize the simple solution to the complaint is to remove Paavo from decisions, at least during the investigation and to keep the project on track. However, after reviewing records and patterns of contractors and awards, I fear that the investigation will point to even greater infractions in the awarding of contracts and violation of contracting code.

P.S. I don't think the grand jury has the formal complaint and perhaps Lisa ought to file it there too, if she hasn't already.

Mike said...

Hey Don... With such a marvelous "memory" and through research, could you please enlighten this blog with just how many "numerous lawsuits" that TaxPayers Watch has filed...???

Please respond... we really are interested...and YOUR credibility is at stake here...

Mike said...

Gee Don... maybe that was too tough for you to answer... why don't you ask Ann, she likes to file lawsuits, although she doesn't seem to need to pay for them... but come on Don, how many is "numerous lawsuits"...??? 10, 20, 30...???

I do believe Richard knows exactly "who" you are....

danbleskey said...

Don Wrote:
“I believe based on the counter-productive actions by Richard he has to answer to the motive questions and 3 more wasted years. I believe, as Franc and Shark that he could have helped get the project built by assisting the post recall board through the October 2005 Blakeslee compromise.”

That is what is the truly sad “what if”. What is outrageous is that MWH did the same thing. Had the worked with the new board instead of doing everything to thwart them, they actually may have gotten the redesign work???? But instead they worked against the board. Even the contractors (with exception) worked with the Board and the pipeline system would have been complete or nearly so and the plant would have been under construction.

Mike said...

"WHY"...??? Why would you think any of the recalled would have worked "with" the CSD5...??? Don't you remember the character assassinations by the CSD5...???

When did the CSD5 ever NOT blame the past Directors...??? Hell, they still dump on Richard, Gordon and Stan... wich is exactly why some of us are still here to remind the community of just how nasty and vindictive the CSD5 were and still are....!!!!!

BTW, Richard was not involved with the Blakeslee "compromise"... Look to Julie and Lisa for not wanting to agree... If Blakeslee should be hung, it's for his not calling for the immediate State Audit, in fact, he decided to protect his political backside by turning his back on Los Osos... again look to the very vindictive Lisa and Julie for his decision to let Los Osos flounder... There much more to the story than what Lisa has said publicly...

Churadogs said...

Dan sez:"That is what is the truly sad “what if”. What is outrageous is that MWH did the same thing. Had the worked with the new board instead of doing everything to thwart them, they actually may have gotten the redesign work???? But instead they worked against the board. Even the contractors (with exception) worked with the Board and the pipeline system would have been complete or nearly so and the plant would have been under construction."

There, sadly -- an curiously -- is the real tragedy and mystery. The community didn't ever say, "no sewer," despite all the lies. The community said, simply, "no sewer PLANT" in the middle of town. A perfectly reasonable request.

Interesting, it soon became obvious that what was really at work here with the Tri-W, recalled 3, & related folks ("fine them out of existence," and TPW let's get LAFCO to shut the CSD down crowd, that what this was really all about was slash & burn ego,CYA fear and certainly not about the community, not the about the "water" not even common sense -- from the recalled 3 all the way up to the screw-ups in the Sacramento SWB office and the furious-ego of Roger Briggs. No clear heads in the bunch, it was all Bleep You And The Horse You Rode In On. Tragedy. Those pipes should have been laid, work moved ahead, plant redesign, etc. all doable under that Oct. compromise, but some people didn't want that to happen. And the question was and still is: Why not?

Mike said...

...I can almost buy your comment Ann...except I watched the gigantic egos of Lisa and Julie at work... They destroyed any chance of working with the RWQCB, CCC, the BOS and especially ALL the past Directors... Put the real problem right on the shoulders of the CSD5 and Gail McPherson...!!!!

YOU have it 180 degrees out of reality Ann...

Watershed Mark said...

MIKE:

Do you even own a compass?
You certainly cannot read one...

Are you using stolen equipment to blogcast your bias sludge?
Did you ever find out what where your AZ friends and relatives actually live.

What were the findings of your Florida research?
Have you been getting together with "sorry, I forgot his last name" Lynette over drinks?

The nice thing about investigations is they have a way of taking on a life of their own.
Note to "r" and crew: When you’re in a hole: "stop digging"...

Unless you are Ron “___ ___” Crawford.
I really am looking forward to his book.

"Why wasn't vacuum studied by Paavo's handpicked?no bid?sole souce consulting engineer?"
Come on MIKE get on course...

FOGSWAMP said...

On the brighter side, the scorched-earth left behind by the rejected three is finally turning to fertile ground, out of town.

Rejection is painful and tuff to handle. Adolescent ugly hostility doesen't help the healing process.

Watershed Mark said...

"Why wasn't vacuum studied by Paavo's handpicked/no bid/sole souce consulting engineer?"

Mike said...

Healing Process...??? Are you so stupid as to think the parade of chimps in front of the BOS has accomplished anything...??? Has the "move the sewer" (or in reality, the "no sewer") campaign accomplished anything except delay a legal sewer and increase the costs...???

Do you think that the PZLDF lawsuit accomplished anything positive...??? All that accomplished was Lisa and Gails final theft of the CSD treasury....

Sourced earth...??? Catchy notion, but pure bull shit...!!!! Adolescent hostility...???? Then you somehow think the CSD5 were mature, reasoning people...??? Hell, Julie was so mature that she couldn't keep her panties on and walked away from a her family to have how many affairs...??? Oh yes, a really mature role model....

Tells us how mature the CSD5 acted in stealing our tax dollars to throw at an incompetent Temp GM and a bunch of lawyers to fight windmills... Yup, you are a real thinking man's man... You probably even believe the unemployed dog meat salesperson from AZ and how the wrecklamator would save Los Osos for the bad old State...

Aaron said...

There's plenty of blame to go around, which is why we shouldn't be blaming anyone at all since everyone involved has screwed up somewhere. "My credibility is questionable? Let's talk about YOUR credibility!" The circular arguments never seem to end.

Mike said...

You still haven't looked around Aaron... This blog is nothing but a blame the past Directors and cheerleading the delays at all costs...

Too many "Don, the conspiracy freak" floating around in his septic tank of dossiers... Maybe you can help "Don" understand HOW MANY lawsuits TW filed... or do you know...??? How many have Ann Crawfords signature and how many has she paid her share of...???

Yup, this is little more than a gossip column... and I love reminding the "Don" that he is still spreading lies and enuendo... I don't have to be nice, I'm a member of the tired community that hates hearing the complaints of Lisa and Julie... I do hope a criminal charge comes out and one or both of them get to wear orange suite (if they make them that large)... it's take too long, but I do wish it was Q&F... Have a really difficult day Aaron, you are not the darling of this blog or Los Osos either.... :-)

Aaron said...

I've seen enough, thanks. Just don't feed into it.

You're absolutely right. I'm no darling, but I know better.

Mike said...

I do too... but someone has to remind the extremists that there is another view and it's possibly more valid....

Richard LeGros said...

1. This blog string is about the Tribune’s printing of an article about LISA SCHICKER'S filing of her Complaint to the County (with Ann’s suggestion that the Tribune is doing something fishy). I see nothing wrong with the Tribunes printing of the article; nor is their ‘intent’ relevant to anything facing the community or how the County will behave. Let us not forget that nobody else has discussed Ann’s ‘issue’ on this current string; not even Ann herself.

2. The question I asked was what exactly is Lisa Schicker up to this time?
This is a reasonable question; and much more relevant to the fate of Los Osos than speculation about the goings-on at the Tribune.
It is apparent from the many responses in the current string that folks see this question more relevant than Ann’s.

3. As to what exactly Lisa Schicker is doing this time, I clearly and politely addressed the Complaint and the Complaint's documents; and clearly and politely pointed out Lisa's failure to prove the Complaint's issues along with providing relevant law.

4. Lisa clearly made the statement that her 'reason' to file the Complaint to the SLO BOS was that her Complaint would result in an 'affordable' WWTP that is 'environmentally and technically superior'. This is a lofty claim.
We all have the right; and it is reasonable to ask; that Lisa explains EXACTLY HOW her Complaint will result in her ‘goals’.
Why?
Simply because if Lisa wants public support on her Complaint, then her explanation will help her garner support for it. Without her explanation her Complaint will only result in costing Los Osos time and money; OUR MONEY.

5. Lisa's past behavior directly leads to the question of her intentions and honesty in relation to the Complaint itself.
Regarding her honestly, in the past I have provided on this very blogsite for everybody's review Superior Court Documents and Personal Declarations made under oath that undeniably prove that Lisa committed perjury; and has conspired to commit perjury with others.
THIS IS A FACT.
This fact not ‘speculation or spin’.
This fact is relevant as now that we all know Lisa is a perjurer (liar), how can anyone know when she is lying or telling the truth? Without knowing that, her credibility is zero.

6. Regarding the issue of the content and credibility of Lisa's Complaint; as well as questioning Lisa’s stated ‘intention’.
The immediate response by some was to NOT respond to my observations at all.
Instead some entirely avoided the discussion of this issue by resorting to attacking me personally.

7. Additionally, some viciously berated that my raising the issue of Lisa’s credibility was vile, unjust and uncalled for.
It is amazing cynical was that those berating me so responded by they themselves shamelessly blogging vile, unsubstantiated, and untrue comments regarding the personal character of myself and others.

In closing, it is obvious that the problem some have with my posts is not regarding the ISSUES;
RATHER the problem some have with my posts is that I dare raise and discuss the issues at all!

-R

FOGSWAMP said...

Mike

You need to find new spin-words and get up to speed.

Haven't you heard construction costs have dropped about 30% and our overall monthly cost will be less even if we don't get some of the grants?

If you don't like the scorched-earth tag, try slash and burn.

TCG said...

Interesting memo from the County Public Works Department to the Planning Commission just posted on the County's project web site. Good project recap, explaination of PW approach, and indications as to areas in the project that the County feels have acceptable options.

Mike said...

Well Foggy... I don't give a darn what you change your words to.. you are still trying to blame the past Directors while viewing your own anus... You simply are afraid to look at the damage done by Lisa and her extreme vindictiveness...but perhaps you are one of those extreme sewer obstructionists...you don't like the way the sewer was developed, so by God you'll break all the toys...

Now tell us how many "numerous" lawsuits that your buddy Don thinks TW filed...??? And then tell us why Ann and PZLDF has never paid a penny on that lawsuit "agreement"...??? If you want slash and burn or scourched earth, go look at the bankruptcy and see just how the CSD5 slashed and burnt our tax dollars... but you seem to think that was "cute"... oh well, you'll get to pay for a sewer one of these days...

Mike said...

BTW Foggy... if there are no projects, you could try spinning that into a 100% drop in construction costs... sorry, but you won't find a 30% savings on whatever wwtf the County comes up with... and you can thank the CD5 for that...!!!!

Alon Perlman said...

So is there a copy of the DA's statement floating somewhere? That key document should, in absence of County council's response, be sufficient to resolve all issues discussed by those who actually read the package.

GetRealOsos said...

Mike,

I tend to agree with Aaron when he says, "There's plenty of blame to go around, which is why we shouldn't be blaming anyone at all since everyone involved has screwed up somewhere."

His statement makes more sense than anyone's on this blog. If any of you are not corrupt, you are so stupid, but I tend to think corrupt over stupid. Pick one.

Mike, if you aren't Richard, you are Gordon. It's funny that 2 to 3 past directors argue with each other on this site, blaming each other for failures. You all failed, lied and cheated this community -- Julie, Gail, Richard, Gordon -- all of you!

Yep, enough blame to go around. Enough agendas to go around -- that's for sure. All of you get your pay day and screw the community. It will never be the same here -- either what is was or could be. You all want to ruin a good thing for your own benefit. Thank you.

The only thing I agree with you on is for our friend above to talk about healing when she helped create this big mess for her own financial benefit and obviously could care less about anyone but herself. The nerve to even bring up that word makes me sick.

BTW Mike, I told you about construction costs going down and copied a news article on it months and months ago. The County presented the same at a BOS meeting. Are you saying they're full of shit?! I know they are, but is that what you're saying too?!

P.S. YOU NEVER answered but you have accused me over and over of lying. Wanna take a shot and tell me exactly what I lied about?

You apparently are just a "shouter".

Mike said...

Sorry GRO, I don't share your "opinions" or your guesses, lies or plain bull crap....!!! You really don't know who or what you are spreading lies about...

You apparently feel you don't lie, well sorry jerk, you have and you apparently believe your own lies...

You also are not very knowledgeable about construction...come back when there is a real project ready to estimate... in the meantime, it's all conjecture... there are more than enough back-of-the-envelope estimates floating around... I'll wait and see... and remember, there was a fully permitted, legal design and it was under construction..

In the meantime... you are and remain just one of the sewer obstructionist liars... Q&F

Aaron said...

I notice you keep calling people "liars" but you never say what they're lying about.

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Watershed Mark said...

Quack and Fib MIKE is now slinging his sludge at the county. He is a mad dog foaming at the mouth and like:
-sorry, I forgot his last name, Lynette the county's dog catcher will soon catch up with him and put him away.

Keep digging "r"! What are you hiding from? What are you afraid of?
It is amusing that you were removed from office as you don’t know WWT design or how much pipe is required, while wasting money clear cutting land while delaying your removal from office “process” attempts to offer advice to someone who has lodged a complaint.

I guess you and your crew thought slashing the Tri-W would show everyone what real men you were.
Have you been having drinks with “sorry, I forgot his last name” Lynette?

Watershed Mark said...

the county's dog catcher "could" soon catch up with him and put him away.

I like dogs and think if they can survive by finding a new home on their own, they should unless they bite or cause other damage.
In MIKE's case he could be caught and destroyed as no one in their correct mind would rescuse him.

Watershed Mark said...

reuse/rescue him. Take your pick...

Aaron said...

Since Ann changed her layout, I'd like to jump into the bandwagon. I have a new blog called The Razor. The latest article is "Garfink'd."

Check it out here.

Alon Perlman said...

Yeh, everything is everything, and circular arguments are circular, cliches are cliches are cliches, everybody’s “wrong” . and everybody’s “right”.
I for one believe that there is more damage inflicted in this world by well meaning stubborn incompetents, than by truly evil malfeasers with the eye on a financial gain. Not to say that money versus power, or other forms of control and manipulation are not rewards in themselves.

GRO brings up an interesting notion, that besides anoni-mouse that write anonymously because they are not known in the sewer Blow-viating circles and want to avoid confronting their physical neighbors, that there may be a species of anoni-Rat, individuals who ARE known and whose duplicity forces them to post under an assumed name.
Imagine the possibilities. Such a person, known to all, has under cover of anonymity the ability to create blogposting identities, perhaps even multiple identities. How would these Multiple Identity fictions (single Author sourced) interact. Let’s say someone known to all as a Giant Big Mouth wanted to post with false Identities they could chose anoni-rat identities GBM1 and GBM2.
How would GBM1 congratulate GBM2 for their fine postings, How would GBM2 offer to get GBM1 some data. And what if the originator also had a large email list to whom “updates” are given. This could get ridoculus in a hurry.
Hi, sewerlings. Just an update from Giant, There appears to be a new voice proclaiming our cause over at the Suchandsuch blog. Wonder who it is? They agree with us on so many points. GBM3, hope you are also letting the county/gummint/RU32P board know your views.”
I hope that Lisa would be politically astute enough not to fall under the spell of such a “hypothetically posited” person. While others may interpret this as they may, I consider myself as an observer/reporter/actiontaker directly and indirectly of EVERYTHING that happens in osostown. And as a proven understander of documents complex legal and otherwise. I have deduced that Lisa is getting help on this, only alas it’s not very good help.

TCG said...

Amen, Alon, to your deduction!