tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post116757221443329221..comments2023-10-28T03:14:44.519-07:00Comments on Calhouns Can(n)ons: NewsstandGreghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04099049885765768069noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1168476996248247122007-01-10T16:56:00.000-08:002007-01-10T16:56:00.000-08:00In response to Bev DeWitt-Moylan's explaination of...In response to Bev DeWitt-Moylan's explaination of McPhersons meeting where she kept the citizens waiting in the cold & rain, I agree that her response was WEAK. She stated that the meeting had "2 functions & one was to cover privileged & confidential information"---If, in fact, the entire PROHIBITION ZONE is affected, then what was so "PRIVILEGED" regarding THAT meeting? These citizens live in the PROHIBITION ZONE, so what's priviledged & confidential? Also, if the PZLDF is out of money & STILL owes the attorney, does that mean that the entire PZ is "on the hook" for that bill????Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1168069295270519532007-01-05T23:41:00.000-08:002007-01-05T23:41:00.000-08:00Anon above -- don't waste your breath. Ann never a...Anon above -- don't waste your breath. Ann never addresses what she doesn't want to address, don't you know that? She has a reputation for 90 degree slant. You can plainly see she doesn't have an ounce of integrity or a grain of conscience. I'm sure she's on McPherson's payroll to write her blurbs. I believe this is called a duet -- one canary, one jailbird.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1168062739070038342007-01-05T21:52:00.000-08:002007-01-05T21:52:00.000-08:00churadogs said... I sez, again:"Care to identif...<I>churadogs said...<BR/> I sez, again:"Care to identify yourself then, since she knows you (having worked with you years ago) you shouldn't have to remain an anonymous poster here."<BR/> and Anon sez:"Ann,<BR/> Of all the things I said, you choose to focus on my identity! Why? If I wanted to identify myself I would have. Explain why you ignore 99% of my comments? I believe your reasons are purely chemical."<BR/> Nope, still no identity.Hmmm, that's interesting.<BR/> 7:35 AM, January 05, 2007</I><BR/><BR/>OK, ANN, WHY IS MY IDENTITY SO IMPORTANT TO YOU? DON'T BOTHER TO ANSWER THAT -- I ALREADY KNOW. I'M NOT GOING TO SEND YOU ON A WILD GOOSE CHASE, LIKE GAIL DID ON SELLING THE COMMUNITY ON AMENDING AB2701. WHY WOULD I TELL YOU MY NAME ONLY TO HAVE YOU PICK AT MY FLESH LIKE TWIN VULTURES. ALL I WILL TELL YOU IS THAT YOU KNOW WHAT I SAID IS OUT THERE AND IT'S REAL, AND THAT GAIL AND I GO BACK A WAYS AND, LIKE THE SONG SAYS, "I'M A GAIL WATCHER"!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1168011350200446772007-01-05T07:35:00.000-08:002007-01-05T07:35:00.000-08:00I sez, again:"Care to identify yourself then, sinc...I sez, again:"Care to identify yourself then, since she knows you (having worked with you years ago) you shouldn't have to remain an anonymous poster here."<BR/><BR/>and Anon sez:"Ann,<BR/><BR/>Of all the things I said, you choose to focus on my identity! Why? If I wanted to identify myself I would have. Explain why you ignore 99% of my comments? I believe your reasons are purely chemical."<BR/><BR/>Nope, still no identity.Hmmm, that's interesting.Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167935721781501992007-01-04T10:35:00.000-08:002007-01-04T10:35:00.000-08:00Churadogs said...6:14 AM, January 04, 2007 Anonymo...Churadogs said...6:14 AM, January 04, 2007 <BR/><BR/>Anonymous sez:"I worked with her years ago, and I know what I'm talking about when I'm talking about Gail."<BR/><BR/>Care to identify yourself then, since she knows you (having worked with you years ago) you shouldn't have to remain an anonymous poster here.<BR/><BR/><I>Ann,<BR/><BR/>Of all the things I said, you choose to focus on my identity! Why? If I wanted to identify myself I would have. Explain why you ignore 99% of my comments? I believe your reasons are purely chemical.</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167920062087642262007-01-04T06:14:00.000-08:002007-01-04T06:14:00.000-08:00Anonymous sez:"I worked with her years ago, and I ...Anonymous sez:"I worked with her years ago, and I know what I'm talking about when I'm talking about Gail."<BR/><BR/>Care to identify yourself then, since she knows you (having worked with you years ago) you shouldn't have to remain an anonymous poster here.Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167891979025799662007-01-03T22:26:00.000-08:002007-01-03T22:26:00.000-08:00Anon: 5:25 PM, January 03, 2007It was hardly my in...Anon: 5:25 PM, January 03, 2007<BR/><BR/>It was hardly my intention to be rude to Beverly, but it wasn't to coddle her, either. This isn't a sewing circle. Beverly responded with inconsequential generalities and superficial exposition that had nothing to do with ANYTHING I asked her.<BR/><BR/>My response was critical, not negative. I asked honest questions and got back zero answers. I did get a lot of filler though. Nice filler.<BR/><BR/>In the end, Gail is calling the shots, and the only shots that have hit their targets so far are those fired by the water board at Los Osos. Bull's-eye!<BR/><BR/>That's what happens when you have a jailhouse lawyer who's working the water board. Anyone who can't see this "just fell off the turnnip truck," as Gail likes to refer to Los Ososans. Did you know you are a turnip in her eyes?<BR/><BR/>Every single person who lives in the PZ has been sold out by the very person they thought was there to help them all. And help them all she did -- right out of their homes. Right out of your homes.<BR/><BR/>Once she convinces the CDO recipients to give their 218 vote to Reed Sato, Gail's job is done: Mission Accomplished. She'll be set for life, while the end of your life is just beginning. And it won't faze her in the least. Cold as ice, baby. Cold as ice no global warming could thaw.<BR/><BR/>I worked with her years ago, and I know what I'm talking about when I'm talking about Gail. But the damage has already been done. The damage has already been done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167879035481379342007-01-03T18:50:00.000-08:002007-01-03T18:50:00.000-08:00There we go again. Blame the new board/blame the ...There we go again. Blame the new board/blame the old board. STOP IT. Yes, get behind the county and build a sewer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167874632402887932007-01-03T17:37:00.000-08:002007-01-03T17:37:00.000-08:00Just back the county and build the sewer. It woul...Just back the county and build the sewer. <BR/><BR/>It would appear that proceeding toward ending the septic pollution would go a long way toward satifying the RWQCB. <BR/><BR/>Continueing to fight increases the states frustration with Los Osos. The state would not have had to go to a CDO prosecution process had the CSD continued building. I still see no reason for this continued fight. We would not be receiving CDO's if the CSD had continued the original approved, permitted and funded project.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167874072250625832007-01-03T17:27:00.000-08:002007-01-03T17:27:00.000-08:00I like the Buddha reference. Let's not forget Gha...I like the Buddha reference. Let's not forget Ghandi who said: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Think about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167873902018617452007-01-03T17:25:00.000-08:002007-01-03T17:25:00.000-08:00I'm sorry for you, Anon 2:56. To respond that way...I'm sorry for you, Anon 2:56. To respond that way to Beverly is just plain rude. I believe that most folks here are good and kind and want the best for the community. Do you? Or you just interested in tearing things down?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167865000506407622007-01-03T14:56:00.000-08:002007-01-03T14:56:00.000-08:00Weak response, Beverly. Sorry.Weak response, Beverly. Sorry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167863217420803162007-01-03T14:26:00.000-08:002007-01-03T14:26:00.000-08:00To achieve some balance in the information being p...To achieve some balance in the information being presented in this "comments" section it is necessary to address the issues raised regarding both the meeting referred to in today's post by Anonymous 8:58 AM, and the nature of the settlement agreement developed by a group of Designated Parties in concert with the lawyer referred to in Anonymous post 12:48 PM from today. <BR/><BR/>Anonymous poster 8:58 AM was there, and so knows that the meeting he referred to had two functions. The first was to cover privileged and confidential information regarding our negotiations on a settlement agreement. Because it went on so long, Bill went outside to acknowledge the four Interested Parties present at least twice during that meeting and to explain that the confidential part of the meeting was still going on. Unfortunately, that part of the meeting lasted till there was no time or inclination by participants at its end to stay for a general meeting. <BR/><BR/>It is my experience that the meeting in question is the only general meeting which was promised to Interested Parties, but did not happen. Over the course of a year during which meetings have occurred nearly weekly that is a pretty good record. If any of the four gentlemen believe they did not get the apology they deserve for standing in the cold to try to attend a meeting that never occurred, I extend it now as I did so in person to at least one of them.<BR/><BR/>The settlement agreement offered to defendants by the prosecution was worked out between two Designated Parties and the prosecution. Because the door had been opened to a negotiated settlement, because the majority of us Designated Parties were unwilling to settle for the prosecution's version, and because we had hoped to work out a more constructive agreement, we engaged a lawyer to assist us to craft a document we could live with and that would help everyone in the PZ. We expected that a settlement would be a way out for all, including the Water Board. After a few negotiation sessions, however, the prosecution rejected our version outright and said they had already made their best offer. <BR/><BR/>Most of us are quite aware that the prosecution's settlement agreement is essentially worse than a CDO, but it does not carry the acronym, and therefore loses some of the unintended consequences of a CDO, making it attractive to those who are affected by a CDO's unintended consequences. Signing it gives others the sense they are off the hook, at least for now, in a process they don't understand and want to get out from under. The agreement that some people were coerced into signing before and during the hearing was not the one that originated with our group or emerged from our negotiations. <BR/><BR/>Chairman Young indicated at the December 15 hearing that negotiations could continue up to January 22 to try for a better settlement agreement, but Mr. Sato does not appear to be interested in negotiating a better deal. <BR/><BR/>I hope this message helps to clarify some of the points brought up by the aforementioned posters.<BR/><BR/>Thank you,<BR/><BR/>Bev. De Witt-MoylanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167857310965243672007-01-03T12:48:00.000-08:002007-01-03T12:48:00.000-08:00Beverly,You are truly wonderful, but you are misle...Beverly,<BR/><BR/>You are truly wonderful, but you are misled. You can be both.<BR/><BR/>You never needed Gail. She needed you more than you needed her. You don't know that because you're nice and naive, like Little Red Riding Hood. Gail never was nice, and has always been a wolf in sheep's clothing.<BR/><BR/>You are a gentle woman. Your husband is a gentleman. Many of the CDO people are average citizens, not gladiators. You needed help, so you thought. You needed someone to whip you into a unified force, so you thought. Curiously, you fail to mention one positive, solid result achieved by Gail on behalf of the CDO recipients, other than she organized you, she agreed to restart the prosecution, you all shared the same documents -- and a lawyer who drove now lawyer-less PZLDF into debt. For the accomplishment of carving a settlement that is actually worse than getting a CDO, you and the other 44 recipients could have just as well have handed in a blank piece of paper.<BR/><BR/>"Do you live in the PZ?"<BR/>Uh, yes.<BR/>"Do you use a septic tank?"<BR/>Um, yes.<BR/><BR/>GUILTY.<BR/><BR/>That you couldn't figure this out on your own is more a testament to the power of fear and dangers of passivity. That you allowed yourself to be used for political purposes and taken over by a dominatrix with a bent agenda is yet another shining example of why we continue to find ourselves as a community losing battle after battle.<BR/><BR/>I commend you -- and all the other CDO recipients -- for your courage, but if Buddha were alive today and Gail tried to bud in and organize, even Buddha in all his wisdom would have said hell no.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167843500090347982007-01-03T08:58:00.000-08:002007-01-03T08:58:00.000-08:00Regarding comments from Bev. DeWitt-Moylan, she sa...Regarding comments from Bev. DeWitt-Moylan, she says, "if we want factual information, attend the meetings"--HELL, we TRIED to attend "Gails meetings" & were denied entrance. Do you not recall on a cold, rainy night, she denied several elderly residents access to "HER MEETING"? It was absolutely incredible, that on such an inclement night, these folks were DENIED ACCESS by Gail, & a couple of her THUGS & GOONS. These citizens had EVEN CONTRIBUTED money to the PZ legal defense & that's how they get treated? McPherson needs to go & the LOCSD BOD need to TELL HER IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that her "help" is no longer needed or wanted". Her judgment calls STINK.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167839887508243832007-01-03T07:58:00.000-08:002007-01-03T07:58:00.000-08:00Anonymous sez:"And the fact that her column is the...Anonymous sez:"And the fact that her column is there every week makes it appear to the more, how do I say, "casual" reader, that what Ann writes is fact. Ann's column even has a name, "Calhoun's Can(n)ons", which gives it more credibility and importance to the, um, "casual" reader."<BR/><BR/>Incorrect. The column runs every OTHER week, not weekly.<BR/><BR/><BR/>anonymous (more anonymouses) sez:"It's curious that you say you want the people of Los Osos to become educated on what's happening in Los Osos, when you, yourself, do not have a clue! Many of us know much more than you do.<BR/><BR/>Your teacher is Gail. You sound like Gail -- "train wreck" and "follow the dots" -- "<BR/><BR/>You need to go back and re-read my columns. Was using the wrods train wreck long before Gail came on the scene.<BR/><BR/>gosh, another anonymous sez:"peddling McPherson's skewed platitudes as her own, has"<BR/><BR/>time to dig out those old Cannons and do some re-reading. <BR/><BR/>Oh, Oh, MORE anonymooses who sez:"Julie Tacker is pissed at Ann Calhoun because of Ann's criticism of Tacker entering into a "business" relationship with Jeff Edwards"<BR/><BR/>Wrong again. Julie's not pissed at me. If she has any quarrel with anything in this blog, she logs on -- using her own name, not some anonymoose tag -- and speaks her mind. so, Nope, you got that wrong. <BR/><BR/>sewertoons sez:"If you are going to cast doubt in this public blog on someone who is still working in the community, you need to state what you mean. Passing the comment off to "trusting" that Maria Kelly knows, does nothing to clarify the aspersions that you made public."<BR/><BR/>CAVEAT to all: Keep in mind all the statements made as if they were facts by "anonymous" posters. Consider the source . . . anonymous. Please reread Bev's last posting concerning . . . anonymoooses . . .'Nuff said?Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167807466876062572007-01-02T22:57:00.000-08:002007-01-02T22:57:00.000-08:00My mother used to tell me to make sure when I spok...My mother used to tell me to make sure when I spoke that my comments generated more light than heat.<BR/><BR/>Embarrassment, one of my trauma teachers said, is being caught doing exactly what you want to do.<BR/><BR/>The Buddha said that no matter what a person does, there will always be someone to criticize it.<BR/><BR/>The anonymity of a blog is a way for some people to express their thoughts with no consequences. For others the choice of anonymity on a blog is a way to act out without fear of being caught. Expressing opinions anonymously when they are obscene, defamatory, or misleading, or are simply untrue statements and suppositions disguised as facts is the equivalent of a drive-by. Destructive anonymous posting is a guerilla tactic to avoid embarrassment and responsibility while allowing those who practice it to vent rage and hostility at will without fear of reprisal. Anonymous assassination does nothing, however, to advance the discussion nor add to the knowledge base. <BR/><BR/>I have seen derogatory and defamatory comments made about many people on this blog, about some who have the courage to stand behind what they say by signing their names, about others who do not sign or who choose a pseudonym, and about others who have no connection with this blog whatsoever. <BR/><BR/>Specifically in my case, people have made suppositions about my and Bill's voting records, civic responsibility, motives, intelligence, and any number of other aspects of our lives about which they know little or nothing. <BR/><BR/>Opinions expressed on this blog about the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund, its membership, and actions taken by its members often pass as fact. Opinions expressed about the conduct of PZLDF business, about the lawyer, about members of the group and their motives, intelligence, and background are passed off as fact.<BR/><BR/>If the person(s) making the anonymous, uninformed, misleading, derogatory comments has/have ever attended an informational meeting of PZLDF, then (s)he/they were not paying attention or did not stay very long. The person(s) making these statements has/have probably not spoken individually to anyone involved in the CDO defense or anyone helping PZLDF.The author(s) are obviously not assisting anyone in PZLDF. I would be surprised if the author(s)of many erroneously critical anonymous statements about the CDO situation has/have ever spoken to CDO #1041, CDO #1034, CDO #1001, or any other CDO number to get solid background information about the process we are engaged in.<BR/><BR/>The person(s) who have written anonymous derogatory comments about PZLDF and its membership are not the first to understand that success at the administrative remedy stage was not expected. We (Bill and I and a few other people)have had for months a letter from the SWRCB telling us that appeal to them was premature before a ruling by the RWQCB. Knowing that we are required to "exhaust all administrative remedies" (haven't I explained all this already?)before going before a court and a judge, our focus is to get as much into the record as possible in each of our fifteen minutes of due process. We know we will lose at the first and second levels. After jumping hurdles for just shy of a year we did not need an anonymous blog commentator to tell us that. <BR/><BR/>If you were coming to informational meetings, this info would not have been news to you, either. <BR/><BR/>It does nothing to help the cause of current and future CDO recipients to promote false or misleading information as fact.<BR/>Being critical without a knowledge base accomplishes no constructive end and serves no instructive purpose. To do so anonymously does not allow for discourse and problem solving. It merely serves to create animosity and takes any light out of the discussion. So much energy could be put to such good use and is so needed right now. <BR/><BR/>Thank you,<BR/><BR/>Bev. De Witt-Moylan<BR/><BR/>P.S.<BR/>Feel free to contact Bill and me for information on the CDO defense. We are in the book. As many times as I have made that offer not one person has called to get information. Our CDO hearing is on the 22nd at RWQCB headquarters in SLO at 1 PM. All are invited. Please come.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167804770233114372007-01-02T22:12:00.000-08:002007-01-02T22:12:00.000-08:00"Lay off Gail", you say! Hell, she's the one that..."Lay off Gail", you say! Hell, she's the one that "crafted" the "sell-out" to the CCRWQCB for the CDO recipients, she's the one who "crafted" AB2701, & SHE'S THE ONE who told everyone to "stand down" & the whole Community got "raped" BECAUSE OF HER & her BRILLIANT IDEAS & "top level connections". Give me a break!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167802323568763412007-01-02T21:32:00.000-08:002007-01-02T21:32:00.000-08:00To the blogger above: You're not stupid for demand...To the blogger above:<BR/><BR/> You're not stupid for demanding a fair hearing - it's stupid to have Gail as the lawyer at the hearings rather than having a real lawyer. BTW, Ms. Sullivan was watching the hearings from home or work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167797340246787472007-01-02T20:09:00.000-08:002007-01-02T20:09:00.000-08:00If you feel so strongly that the Waterboards are g...If you feel so strongly that the Waterboards are good honest rightous folks, I recommend that you bend over and accept their settlement. In fact, why don't you download it off their web site, sign it, and send it in now. They could post your name as a settler. That way you could show them your faith and loyalty and, hope for special consideration. No matter that you will be giving away your rights with no guarentee of squat. <BR/><BR/>And you feel that we're stupid for demanding a fair hearing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167795078557095482007-01-02T19:31:00.000-08:002007-01-02T19:31:00.000-08:00Anon @ 6:46Lay off Gail? Okay, you can. You'll be ...Anon @ 6:46<BR/><BR/>Lay off Gail? Okay, you can. You'll be the first to have to move out of your home.<BR/><BR/>Gail can take care of herself just fine. She won't leave, don't worry about that! She's already told us that she won't let go of her total control of the CSD or the community. Her job is not done until gets the 218 passed.<BR/><BR/>Gail's worked so hard for the CDO's, gathering all the information for almost a year when it was clear to most what the RWQCB was going to do and say, "you have a septic, you're in the PZ, then you're guilty" so if Gail was so smart, why didn't she know that (and we did)?!?<BR/><BR/>Why did she have all the CDO people meeting week after week for almost a year, running them into a tizzy? Oh, yeah, she did that to Lisa too. But obviously, Lisa is not too smart either. Nothing but bad advise from Gail to say the least.<BR/><BR/>You fools! You get what you deserve for being so stupid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167792829774614452007-01-02T18:53:00.000-08:002007-01-02T18:53:00.000-08:00You just keep on believing Gail is helping. Some o...You just keep on believing Gail is helping. Some of us have consulted attorneys and are being advised to go a more sane direction. Gail along with Lisa may have violated some State and Federal Laws pertaining to document controls. We have been advised to stay clear of her and the investigation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167792373825419152007-01-02T18:46:00.000-08:002007-01-02T18:46:00.000-08:00I am so sick of ignorant people degrading Gail. S...I am so sick of ignorant people degrading Gail. She has worked her ass off for the last 11 months to support the CDO recipients. She has not told us what to think, but instead has spent endless hours helping to find and organize the documents we needed to support our individual cases. Having faced the Waterboards before, Gail understood the inequities in the system and prepared us for a kangaroo court. (I verified this expectation early on by conversing with parties throughout California that had dealt with the Waterboards.)<BR/><BR/>When some recipients expressed an interest in a settlement, Gail supported those recipients and recommended that we get help with negotiations. Evaluating settlements with the Waterboards without legal advice is suicide. The settlement that many recipients were willing to sign was never excepted by the prosecution team or presented to the board. The prosecution team fooled many people into thinking that their settlement was the same document by changing the title to use similar wording to our proposal before mailing it out. To understand how bad this document really was, you had to understand the implications of various water codes. And no one could predict that waterboards would delete the few benefits in the final draft sent out after the hearings.<BR/><BR/>Lay off Gail. We need her support.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167784137155864952007-01-02T16:28:00.000-08:002007-01-02T16:28:00.000-08:00In response to "anonymous" Jan 1 at 8:17, (Michael...In response to "anonymous" Jan 1 at 8:17, (Michael Jones, I think) If you weren't so "hung up" on Julie yourself, you might be able to see the FACTS here. 1.) McPherson has DONE NO FAVORS for the CDO recipients & all the peoplein the PZ.<BR/>2. Get it into your THICK SKULL, McPherson IS NOT a "UNITER, she's a DIVIDER". Can't YOU SEE THAT.<BR/>The handwriting's on the wall. Grow up & WAKE UP.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1167782634129528012007-01-02T16:03:00.000-08:002007-01-02T16:03:00.000-08:00In response to Allen Martyns comment about the hom...In response to Allen Martyns comment about the homeowners in the PZ being "BLINDSIDED" BY THE WATER BOARD. He's got it wrong, the CDO recipients (& that will be all of us in the PZ), were "taken in" by that con artist McPherson. She's the one that came up with that fatally flawed proposal & thought EVERYONE SHOULD JUST SIGN OFF ON IT. Fine for her to say, she wont be affected by any of her BAD JUDGMENT CALLS, because SHE's NOT IN THE PZ. WAKE UP PEOPLE,<BR/>SHE was responsible for ENDING HER wastewater career in Riverside, what makes anyone here think that SHE'S HERE TO DO THEM ANY FAVORS? She's here to "get even" & for that the entire Community & especially those of us in the PZ will suffer. Stop taking advice from McPherson. Do you HEAR that LOCSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS. Get rid of her.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com