Oh, now this thing has really
gone off into the Crazy Weeds. On May 10, I posted a blog entry noting that
the Regional Water Quality Control Board will be meeting here in SLOTown and
item 14 on the agenda is a discussion/information item regarding the rescinding
of the pointless CDOs that have been on The
Los Osos 45 for years. And how
Harvey Packard is weirdly recommending that the Board do nothing, keep the CDOs
in place, because -- wait for it -- he thinks that somebody somewhere in the
community might? may? could possibly?
refuse to hook up to the sewer once the plant comes on line, even though he
offers absolutely NO evidence for that belief, and so he thinks the 45 should continue to be held hostage just
in case something like that might happen
because he can't think of a single way to deal with such a possibility. Not a single idea.
Which means that his "reason" for recommending
that the Board refuse any and all requests for dumping those ridiculous CDOs was
seriously, jaw-droppingly lame, an embarrassment all 'round.
But, wait, it gets weirder. Seems it was Harvey who thought up the idea of asking the Board to remove
those CDOs in the first place. (See email
exchange below)
And with that, this whole thing slid off into the Crazy
Weeds. Consider: Harvey Packard first asks, out of the blue,
that CDO holder Bill Moylan contact the
other CDOers and ask them to appeal to the Board to rescind those ridiculous
CDOs since he thinks "this would be
a good time" to do that, and Bill replies that contacting CDOers was
Harvey's job (since it was his idea in the first place and he, not Bill, had
all the contact information), and sure enough, Harvey lines up an agenda item, time carved out of the Board's busy schedule to hear the item, community
members who heard about this (including Supervisor Gibson) sent in letters
commenting on that agenda item, (including Bev Moylan's detailed letter to the Board, posted on this blog March 19, 2014).
And then comes Harvey's recommendation: Harvey asks the Board to deny Harvey's idea.
WTF??
So, here's the question:
Is Harvey Packard playing Lucy in a Peanuts cartoon? You know the bit, Lucy asks Charlie Brown to
come kick the football, and Charlie says, Nuh-huh, I don't trust you, and Lucy
promises that she'll hold the football steady, so Charlie runs at the ball and
Lucy yanks it away so Charlie flies through the air and lands-- Splat! -- on
his back and Lucy laughs -- HA-HA-HA-HA!
And here's another question:
Do the Board members know that their staff Chief has been sadistically
playing Lucy on the CDOers in this matter?
And wasting their time as well?
Ah, yes. Your Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board's staff at work. A cartoon.
(The emails)
To
hpackard@waterboards.ca.govharvey.packard@waterboards.ca.govmthomas@waterboards.ca.gov
and 11 More...
May 18 at 11:23 AM
Mr. Packard,
Thank you for your recent correspondence. Please find
attached and pasted below my response to the packet you sent. Once again I have
copied Mr. Michael Thomas in the hope that, as in the past, he can forward my
comments to Water Board members.
Having ourselves on numerous occasions experienced
involuntary exposure by the CCRWQCB of our personal contact and domicile
information over the years, I am especially sensitive to community members who
may not wish to have their personal contact information become public record.
You will note that I have Bcc’d the few community members for whom we have
contact information to protect their privacy.
Sincerely,
Beverley De Witt-Moylan
**My attached correspondence is pasted herewith for your
convenience:
Dear Mr. Packard,
Completely out of context and utterly spontaneously you
suggested, on January 15, 2014, that my husband, William Moylan, rally our CDO
cohorts to ask the Water Board to remove the CDO’s.
With those words you deliberately implied a clear shift in your approach. We
felt encouraged that the CCRWQCB had embarked on a new direction.
It was with considerable consternation that we read your
proposal related to Agenda Item 14 for the May 2014 CCRWQCB meeting. Your
recommendation directly contradicts what you told my husband to do in January.
And so we require clarification.
You can, no doubt, appreciate our current confusion. My
husband did not misunderstand you. After your January conversation he mentioned
noting that you had specifically used the word, remove - and not rescind - the CDO’s.
When my husband contacted you to say that it was your
responsibility, and not his, to ask the Board to remove the CDO’s,
you agreed. You did not refute or correct his language. We had no reason to
believe you had changed your position on encouraging the Board to remove the CDO’s.
(For your convenience those emails appear at the bottom of this message.)
Given that you had unilaterally and unexpectedly raised the
issue of CDO removal, your recent Board
proposal was disconcerting, In January we truly believed that new Board members
and new leadership provided you the opportunity to do the rational, right, and
decent thing. Your recent incomprehensible CDO
proposal demonstrates that nothing has changed. And so we now wonder at the
point of the exercise.
We remain unclear about your motive in approaching my
husband in January to suggest he ask the Water Board to remove the CDO’s.
We will appreciate your clarification of this point of concern. We look forward
to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Beverley De Witt-Moylan
From: william < Subject: Los Osos CDO's
Date: February
10, 2014 8:42:54 PM PST
Dear Mr. Packard,
Recently you spoke to me at the CCRWQCB office suggesting
that my wife and I join forces with other CDO
families to ask the Water Board “to remove” the Cease and Desist Orders they
imposed on us in 2006 and 2007.
It is my understanding that the original individual
enforcement proposal came from CCRWQCB staff. You were on staff at the time of
those hearings that resulted in a 100% successful prosecution rate.
After carefully considering your suggestion, I concluded
that the party who proposed individual enforcement is the appropriate party to
request its removal. As CCRWQCB Enforcement Coordinator and Advisor to
the Board you are in the proper position to ask the Board to remove the individual
Cease and Desist Orders that resulted from the prosecution of the “Los Osos
45.”
I request that you submit that proposal as soon as possible.
On Feb 24, 2014,
at 9:26 AM, Packard,
Harvey@Waterboards wrote:
Mr. Moylan,
I agree that it is my job to make a recommendation to the
Water Board about the CDOs, and I plan on doing so in a written report to the
board for the May 2014 meeting. The board will not take any action at the
meeting, but could provide direction to staff.
If you or anyone else interested in the situation would like
to provide input toward my recommendation, please provide that information to
me by March 31.
Harvey Packard Proposal Response
5 comments:
Oh, and a P.S.In the official Staff Report for the May 22 meeting, said staff reports that should contain all pertinent information on an item, a staff report written and submitted by Harvey, makes NO mention that IT WAS HARVEY who INITIATED this latest bunch of letters (including Supervisor Gibson's missive) asking that the Board rescind these useless CDOs. Instead, Harvey misleads his Board into thinking that somehow this item #14 just arrived out of the blue, just one of those odd, disconnected things that has happened over the years, quite unexplainable.
Wonder if the Board know's they're being conned by their head staff guy?
The sky continues to fall..!!
We do hope Ann voices this great conspiracy theory to the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board. That should really help overturn the public opinion that the LO Crazies are indeed crazy!
Let's hope Julie, Ron and Joey show up to really pour it on. They do so much to show how they represent the normal property owner's worry about CDO's and know that none of the Crazies would dare oppose completion of the WWTF and system.
Bring popcorn, the circus continues. Thanks Ann, we really appreciate your leadership.
Aw, Anon, as usual, you're missing the point. WHY is Harvey wasting the Board's time with this item? And WHY didn't he include the fact that HE asked for this input which resulted in this Agenda item and in HIS staff report, said report which is supposed to accurately and fully inform the Board about the item in question? Yet Harvey "forgot" to include a key point -- that HE created the very issue HE then recommends against, which is yet another complete waste of the Board's time and budget. It's a simple question, Anon. But, about the popcorn, indeed. Today's hearing should prove to be interesting, if genuinely puzzling. After all, when it comes to the insane, useless CDOs, we're always in the Realm of The Mad Hatter Tea Party when dealing with the RWQCB.
It was fun to see you today at the hearing Ann! I'm glad the Board was intelligent and sane about the CDOs and I hope you will write a column on this!
Amen. Couldn't agree more. Keep your fingers crossed, come September. And yes, am posting it now.
Post a Comment