Whereas I Find The County’s Proclamation Will Formally Cover The RWQCB’s Behind While Tossing The Los Osos 45 To The Wolves
Today, at 2 pm, during the Oh Lord, Let’s Deal With Los Osos portion of the BOS meeting, apparently without any notice or input from citizens or the CSD, the BOS is going to vote on and sign off on a Resolution that will hang Los Osos out to dry, possibly officially jeopardize The Los Osos 45’s case to secure their due process rights, all the while pretending the County’s hands are clean and making sure the RWQCB’s behind is fully protected. The citizens of Los Osos, of course, are irrelevant.
Below, an excerpt from the resolution, my email to the BOS, followed by an email letter to Paavo from Ron Crawford, who’s asking some questions about this resolution as well. As Ron’s email points out, a whole lot of Whereas's are missing from this Resolution. A whole lot. Indeed, if you visit his website at www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com you can read reams of the "missing stuff. "
This resolution really goes to the heart of the question: Does the County have the interests of the citizens of Los Osos close to its heart, or is it just making sure it scratches covers various backs? If you think the County was concerned with the citizens, then why were none of them in the back room while this document was being drafted? And why no notice of this proclamation in a timely manner so the citizens of this fair burg could chime in to fix the “inaccuracies” in this document, many of them coming directly from the RWQCB? And why in the world isn’t Supervisor Bruce Gibson leading a charge to have this thing changed so it's at least accurate?
Well, hopefully you'll show up today to find out who actually does understand just how bad this thing is for 45 citizens at least. Katcho? Who doesn't even live in the district? Jim Patterson? Lenthall, who keeps stressing how he wants this process to be clean and fair? Who?
From BOS resolution:
Whereas the County recognizes the the RWQCB still has legitimate concerns about the successful implementation of a project by the County, and that critics of the RWQCB overlook the current practical effect of individual enforcement actions, including the following statemenmts from their staff report of December 7, 2007:
A. Prior project efforts have progressed further than the current County efforts only to be "derailed" and that "the very real possibility (exists) that attempts will be made to derail the project again."
B. "Others have stated their intent to file a lawsuit challenging the (County's Proposition) 218 vote."
C. "The Cease and Desist Orders and settlemnt agreeements are being litigated in San Luis Obsipo Superior Court."
D. "The Cease and Desist Orders and settment agreements do not require any burdensome actions now or in the near future."
Dear Supervisors,
The resolution you are apparently going to pass today states at the end that "the foregoing recitals are true and correct." There's one problem with that. The foregoing recitals are NOT true and correct and if you sign this document, you are signing on to falsehoods.
For example, consider the final "list" of "findings."
A. The CDOs for the Los Osos 45 will do nothing to stop any project from being "derailed." If enough citizens decide to derail any project, the Los Osos 45 will have no effect on the matter. So, that "recital" is false.
B. "Others'" opinions and intents have no bearing on the Los Osos 45. They are NOT responsible for what other people do or say. That "recital" is also false.
C. The PZLDF case is about due process issues and has no bearing on anything. That "recital" is irrelevant. Worse, is it the intent of this Board to sign on to a document that officially approves of citizens having their due process rights suspended while they are being held hostage and abused by a regulatory agency?
D. The CDO's ARE burdensome on The 45, since they alone have been singled out for "punishment," and carry with them a time clock that has not been imposed on the other residents. Again, the issue they raise is about due process and fairness, not sewers or the RWQCB's authority. So that "recital" is false as well.
In addition to enshrining falsehoods as "true," it's interesting what your resolution FAILS to note: The Blakeslee compromise asked everyone to "stand down." The RWQCB FAILED to do so and your resolution FAILED to mention that failure. You have also failed to note that the RWQCB can, at any time, rescind the 45 CDO's they have unfairly imposed and fairly re-issue CDOs to the entire community. Since this document states as true that CDOs are not burdensome, that should not be a problem. Instead, this document does nothing to fix that basic unfairness, it only seeks to officially approve and support it.
Which means, if you pass this thing, you will not only be signing onto falsehoods, you will be adding insult to an already injured community. I beg you to reconsider.
Ann Calhoun
Los Osos, CA
Ron’s email:
Hello Paavo,
In the Resolution concerning the RWQCB enforcement actions for tomorrow's meeting, it reads:"the failures of the LOCSD in 2005"
Which "failures" is the Resolution referring to?
This one?
The failure to construct a mid-town sewer plant that was called "bait and switchy" by Dave Potter of the Coastal Commission in 2004, and that also relied on an unsupported, and therefore illegal, Statement of Overriding Considerations to retain the sewer plant at its unpopular mid-town location, and also included, for absolutely no logical reason whatsoever, a multi-million dollar public park that not only dictated the expensive and unpopular sewer plant location, but also included an amphitheater, picnic area, and tot lot that was all being funded by the State Revolving Fund (while dozens of other California communities couldn't get a dime of SRF funding for their badly needed, amphitheater-less water quality projects), despite the fact that the SRF Policy so brilliantly states: "Ineligible for (SRF) funding -- Decorative Items?"
Is that the "failure" that tomorrow's resolution is referring to... the "failure" to build that project?
If that's not accurate, please clarify which "failures" the resolution is referring to.
As always, much thanks,
Ron
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Yes, Actually, That IS A Lawyer In My Pocket, But I’m Still Happy To See You, Anyway
In my Jan 1 posting,(“Is that a lawsuit in your pocket . . .”), I mused on the Taxpayers’ Watch lawsuit filed against five of the post-recall LOCSD Board members – individually, personally, not as a Board –alleging “sham settlement monies to their political supporters,” regarding the CSD’s settlement over the Measure B lawsuit originally filed by the recalled CSD Board majority.
In the comment section, a person identifying himself as Richard Le Gros (remember, Anonymous commenters are always anonymous, no matter who they say they are) had this to say about my posting . . .
“ Regarding the $600K settlements.....remember that the GRAND JURY found the settlements VERY QUESTIONABLE. As for that shrill McClendon, his reasoning will be very easy to dismiss in court.”
Well, apparently, “shrill McClendon” reads this blog on occasion and read both my posting and this “anonymous” poster’s comments, and emailed me the following. (It’s weird. My memory of Mr. McClendon was someone who was the exact opposite of “shrill.” Soft spoken, calm, measured, but “shrill?” Naw. Not that I ever saw. And since the subject line on his email stated “Re: That Shrill McClendon’g 2-2-06 LOCSD Public Meeting Presentation. . .” I would have to conclude that Droll McClendon would be more like it.)
In any event, as the person calling himself Richard Le Gros will see (below) the courts apparently have found just the opposite of “easy to dismiss.” What still remains a mystery, given the long history of the court’s ruling against people who try to stop elections, is why on earth the pre-recall Board majority ever filed that lawsuit in the first place. Unless they wanted to set up a post-recall board with a time bomb that would cost the citizens dearly? (If that’s the case, then we’re looking at Medea rather than mendacious.) Which is also why I wondered why some citizens haven’t also filed a lawsuit against Stan, Richard & Gordon – personally and individually – for gross negligence in filing a lawsuit that had such a clearly dangerous track record, thereby setting up the community for a hellacious financial hit. It’s a puzzle.
Then at the CSD meeting on 1/3/07, we learned that the Insurance Company that should have defended the Board Members under the policy requirements (Errors and Omissions Board coverage & etc, which covers this sort of thing) denied the claim--(Jeeze, they must think they’re Blue Shield or something) and so the CSD voted 5-0 to spend mo’money to hire an attorney to deal with both the Taxpayers’ Watch lawsuit and the denied claim.
(A side note: CSD attorney, Julie Biggs, noted that under California law, the district is compelled to furnish legal help when members, acting as a board, are sued. To that end, a law firm was found that agreed to take the case. And for good citizens who actually ARE concerned with the taxpayer’s money, it can only be hoped that the case won’t take too long (i.e. take too much money) to conclude.)
Also at that meeting, Joyce Albright of Taxpayers’ Watch accused the five Board members being sued (Tacker, Schicker, Cescena, Senet & former member, Fouche) of using the settlement money to pay” personal debts out of public coffers.” Personal debts? What? they each took the money to pay off their American Express bill for that Christmas purchase of 100 ginormous brand new HDTVs and a new Bentley??
Al Barrow also went to the podium to note that CCLO and CASE were the entities involved in the case and the settlement and none of the Board directors were members of either of those organizations at that time. So it will remain for a judge to decide what the definition of “crony” is. Or what a “personal debt” is. Or if he finds Mclendon’s settlement reasoning “easy to dismiss.” Or if there are other aspects of the case that are not so easy to dismiss.
On the other hand, IF Taxpayers’ Watch loses the case, will they be able to pay the court costs, seeing as how they still haven’t paid their LAFCO bill? (The CSD’s share of that LAFCO bill, to my knowledge, is being paid for by the citizens of this community, the very folks Taxpayers’ Watch claims to be looking out for.)
Well, it’s quite an interesting approach: Present yourself as the guardian of the people’s pocketbook, file lawsuits claiming fraud and public waste and private use of public coffers & etc, the defense of which costs a bundle out of the people’s pocketbook, and if you lose the cases but don’t pay the court costs, thereby causing the people to have to eat those costs, you still maintain that you’re the guardians of the people’s pocketbook. Very droll, I’d say.
Even more interesting, I spoke with Richard Margetson, who had had a restraining order filed against him before the recall by two recalled Board members. If you remember that case, the former Board Members swore, under penalty of perjury, that Margetson was a danger to them, they feared for their lives, and wanted him kept out of CSD meetings and etc, then lost the case when it was clear that it was all ginned up phony crap designed to use the law to silence a vocal critic. (I referred to it as the Emily Latella Case, from the wonderful Saturday Night Live skit with dear confused Emily nattering on about “violins” in the street, when the topic was “violence” in the streets, only to be corrected, at which point she looks into the camera with a wan smile and says, “Oh, Well, Nevermind.” )
At any rate, the recalled CSD two lost the case, but according to Richard, they have yet to pay the court costs and his attorney’s fees. If true, then an irony: One of the former board members involved with that fiasco, is still living in this town, so there’s a question: Until he pays that legal debt, doesn’t that launch the Dear Silly Donkey’s various comments on this blogsite about fiscal prudence and responsibility into the realm of Hypocritical Hokum?
And finally, I find of great interest, the final sentence of “shrill McClendon’s” piece, which I’ve bolded. Hmmmmm, very interesting. [Posted with permission.]
1
WHY SETTLE THE LITIGATION?
SHORT ANSWERS: (1) To eliminate the District’s litigation costs associated with these actions;
(2) To minimize the amount of attorney’s fees the District might have to pay;
(3) To help implement the settlement the SWRCB presented to the District.
Factual and Procedural Background:
• The LOCSD initiated the Measure B lawsuit against County Clerk Julie Rodewald in an
effort to prevent Measure B from going before the voters.
• Judge Hilton ruled in favor of the LOCSD and ordered Rodewald to keep Measure B off the
ballot.
• The Measure B proponents filed an extraordinary writ with the Court of Appeal seeking a
stay of Judge Hilton’s ruling.
• The Court of Appeal immediately issued an Order staying Judge Hilton’s ruling; later, the
Court of Appeal issued an “Order to Show Cause” commanding Judge Hilton to appear and
explain to the Court of Appeal why his ruling should be allowed to stand.
• Thereafter, Measure B went on the ballot and was approved by the voters.
• On October 14, 2005, attorneys for the Measure B proponents threatened to sue the LOCSD
if it failed to abide by Measure B.
• In October, the LOCSD engaged in Blakeslee-facilitated negotiations with SWRCB staff
regarding the SRF Loan.
Relevant Legal Authority:
There is a long-standing judicial bias against granting pre-ballot challenges:
California Supreme Court: “Finally, "‘it has long been our judicial policy to apply a liberal
construction the [the] power [of initiative and referendum] wherever
it is challenged in order that the right not be improperly annulled. If
doubts can reasonably be resolved in favor of the use of this reserve
power, courts will preserve it. [Citations.]’"” (Assembly v.
Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638, 652. Note: the Supreme Court
cited this case in its August 12, 2005 opinion in Costa v. Superior
Court, where it “conclude[d] that it would not be appropriate to deny
the electorate the opportunity to vote on Proposition 77 at the special
election to be held on November 8, 2005 . . . .”)
2
However, courts will uphold pre-ballot challenges in two situations as long as the defect is clear:
“We recognize that "it is usually more appropriate to review constitutional
and other challenges to ballot propositions or initiative measures after an election
rather than to disrupt the electoral process by preventing the exercise of the people's
franchise, in the absence of some clear showing of invalidity." (Brosnahan v. Eu
(1982) 31 Cal.3d 1, 4 [181 Cal.Rptr. 100, 641 P.2d 200].) However, the courts have
recognized two exceptions to the general rule limiting judicial review of ballot
measures to postelection proceedings. The first is where the electorate lacks the
"power to adopt the proposal in the first instance . . . ." (Id., at p. 6; italics supplied.)
"Thus, for example, election officials have been ordered not to place initiative and
referendum proposals on the ballot on the ground that the electorate did not have the
power to enact them since they were not legislative in character [citations], the
subject matter was not a municipal affair [citations], or the proposal amounted to a
revision of the Constitution rather than an amendment thereto." (Id.)
The second exception to the general rule proscribing preelection judicial
review, and the one invoked by the council in the present case, is where the
substantive provisions of the proposed measure are legally invalid.
"[Even] if a proposed measure is within the scope of the initiative power,
courts retain equitable discretion to examine the measure before the election upon a
compelling showing that the substantive provisions of the initiative are clearly
invalid. (See Harnett v. County of Sacramento (1925) 195 Cal. 676, 683 . . .; Gayle
v. Hamm (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 250, 255 . . .; Note, The Scope of the Initiative and
Referendum in California (1966) 54 Cal.L.Rev. 1717, 1725-1729.)" (American
Federation of Labor v. Eu (1984) 36 Cal.3d 687, 696, fn. 11 [206 Cal.Rptr. 89, 686
P.2d 609].) We shall therefore proceed to consider the council's claim that the
referendum would be "clearly invalid" if enacted by the voters.” (deBottari v. City
Council (1985) 171 Cal. App. 3d 1204, 1209-1210; underlining added.)
The relevance of the foregoing legal authority to the Court of Appeal’s ruling on the Measure B
election is that the Court of Appeal was not persuaded that Measure B fit under either of the two
exceptions for pre-ballot challenges. In other words, it concluded that the LOCSD failed to make
a “compelling showing” that (1) the voters lacked the power to put Measure B on the ballot, or
(2) the provisions of Measure B were “clearly invalid.” If the Court of Appeal had thought
otherwise, then it would have affirmed Judge Hilton’s ruling, and Measure B would have not gone
before the voters.
Legal Analysis:
By successfully bringing Measure B before the voters despite the District’s efforts, attorneys
for the Measure B proponents claimed eligibility to recover their fees even if (1) the vote had gone Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 provides: “Upon motion, a court may award
attorneys’ fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if: (a) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any. With respect to actions involving public entities, this section applies to allowances against, but not in favor of, public entities, and no claim shall be required to be filed therefor.” (1) the other way, or (2) a court later invalidated Measure B. The basis for such a recovery of fees is the Legislature’s codified of the judicially created “private attorney general” rule for recovery of attorneys’ fees in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (“Section 1021.5”).1 The purpose of awarding fees under Section 1021.5 is “to encourage suits effectuating a strong public policy by awarding substantial attorney’s fees to those who successfully bring such suits.” (Daniels v. McKinney (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 42, 49.) According to the court in Woodland Hills Residents Assn. v. City Council (1979) 23 Cal.3d 917, 933, the private attorney general statute reflects a legislative policy that privately initiated lawsuits are often essential to the effectuation of the fundamental public policies embodied in constitutional or statutory provisions, and that, without some mechanism authorizing the award of attorneys fees, private actions to enforce such important public policies will as a practical matter frequently be infeasible.
The Measure B proponent would have been entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees under
Section 1021.5 if they showed that (1) their defense of Measure B “has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest,” (2) “a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or onpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons,” and (3) “the necessity and burden of private enforcement are such as to make the award appropriate.” (Woodland Hills Residents Assn. v. City Council, supra, 23 Cal.3d at 935.)
It was likely that the Measure B proponents could have shown that they met all three factors.
Given the relevant law, there is no question that they met the first factor:
“. . . [T]he "state constitutional right of initiative or referendum is 'one of the most
precious rights of our democratic process." [Citation.] These powers are reserved
to the people, not granted to them. Thus, it is our duty to " ' "jealously guard" ' "
these powers and construe the relevant constitutional provisions liberally in favor of
the people's right to exercise the powers of initiative and referendum. (Rossi v. Brown
(1995) 9 Cal. 4th 688, 695 [38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 363, 889 P.2d 557].)" (Pala Band of
Mission Indians v. Board of Supervisors of San Diego County (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th
565, 573-574.)” (Wal-Mart Real Estate Trust v. City Council of the City of
San Marcos (Sept. 7, 2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 614.)
(See also Hull v. Rossi (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1763, an opinion from the local Court of
Appeal awarding attorney’s fees to a real party in interest.)
4
Since more than six thousand voters voted for and against Measure B, this factor would have
been met as well. Finally, given the type of action that the Measure B proponents were defending – the right of the people to exercise a constitution right – the third factor would have been met.
Once eligibility to be awarded attorney’s fees is established, the inquiry focuses on the
amount of fees to be awarded. Here, the court sets a reasonable hourly “touchstone” or
“lodestar” rate based on that prevailing in the community for similar work by attorneys with
comparable experience and expertise. (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 640-641.)
“The Court is not limited to using standard billing rates in setting reasonable hourly
compensation . . . , rather the Court is obliged to use the ‘market value’ approach which is
more likely to entice competent counsel to undertake difficult public interest cases.”
(San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino, supra, 155
Cal.App.3d at 755.) In approving market rate awards for the enforcement of statutory rights
without pecuniary recovery, the United States Supreme Court has said, “the amount of fees
awarded [under section 1988] shall be governed by the same standards which prevail in other
types of equally complex . . . litigation, such as antitrust cases and not be reduced because
the rights involved may be nonpecuniary in nature.” (Blum v. Stenson (1984) 104 S.Ct. 1541,
1547 fn.11.)
Based on my own experience in similar cases, the attorneys for the Measure B
proponents would have likely sought a lodestar in the $300-$400 an hour range. However, in
settlement negotiations, the District got them to agree to not only cap their total fees at less than their full hours, but to also accept a significantly reduced lodestar of about $200 per hour. As a result, the attorney’s fees paid were roughly half of what they would have been had the court set the lodestar at market rates.
Moreover, after multiplying the number of hours spent by the reasonable hourly rate, the
lodestar can be adjusted up or down by using a “multiplier” that’s based on several factors. (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.) We knew that the Measure B attorneys were going to seek an upward “multiplier” to their lodestar based on the fact that (1) their contingency representation of the Measure B proponents during the litigation; (2) their intensive and expedited work that was required during their opposition to the District’s lawsuit, and; (3) the complexity and importance of the litigation. Notably, in Greene v. Dillingham Construction, Inc. (2002) 101 Cal. App. 4th 418, the court expressly held that refusing to consider contingent risk as a factor in a decision not to apply a multiplier is reversible error.
However, in all of our settlement agreements, we got the attorneys to agree to waive their
right to seek a Serrano multiplier, which further reduced the District’s potential exposure.
In sum, by settling the Measure B litigation, the District reduced its potential exposure to a
judgment for private attorney general fees to a fraction of what it could have been. For example, if the Measure B attorney had established their hourly lodestar at $350 per hour and had been awarded a multiplier of 1.50 (neither number is uncommon), the District would have had to pay in over $325,000 in attorney’s fees in the Measure B litigation alone – $200,000 more than it actually did.
If one adds to this number the amount it would have cost the District for its attorneys to continue prosecuting the Measure B litigation, and the additional amount of hours the Measure B attorneys would have spent defending it, the District’s potential exposure for continuing to pursue this action after the Court of Appeal’s ruling might well have exceeded $500,000.
A similar analysis applies to the other cases.
As a practical matter with contingency lawyers, they have no “end game” to recover their fees except to win. Consequently, they do not usually give up until all possible avenues to achieving victory are exhausted. Had they been successful on even one of the remaining cases, the District could have found itself facing the prospect of having to pay significant private attorney general fees – again, in addition to the significant fees it would have paid to its own attorneys.
The SWRCB’s Settlement Offer to the District.
The final factor relevant to the District’s settlement of the Measure B litigation was the District’s
efforts to obtain certain concessions from the Measure B proponents that would have helped
facilitate the District’s implementation of the first “final offer” settlement proposal SWRCB staff
presented to the District in negotiations brokered by Assemblyman Blakeslee. The District was
hoping to (1) fast track a new election to modify or rescind Measure B by conducting the election
itself, and (2) forestall a future lawsuit by reaching consensus with the Measure B proponents on
which “feasible” alternatives would be presented to the voters if the vote required by Measure B hadto take place. Unfortunately, after the District obtained these concessions from the Measure B proponents, two things happened. First, the County declined to enter into a stipulated judgment addressing these issues.
Second, thanks to a Public Records Act request presented by the San Luis
Obispo Tribune to the SWRCB, it was revealed that the SWRCB had undertaken the Blakeslee
negotiations in bad faith and had presented their “final offer” to the District knowing full well that
the SWRCB never intended to approve it even if the District accepted it. [emphasis mine]
And Now Onto Something REALLY Serious
At the 1/3 CSD Board Meeting, Maria Kelly announced another Water Conservation Faire,” Saturday, January 19, 10 – 2 at the Methodist Church at Pine and LOVR. There’ll be a variety of experts there to help you figure out ways to reduce your water use.
In addition, at the CSD meeting, during public comment, it was noted that on Jan 15, the Board of Supervisors will be discussing the water conservation and retrofit issues. Right now, the plan is to allow building outside the PZ if builders or developers retrofit X-number of existing houses. The concern expressed was this: You now allow builders outside the PZ to build by “cherry picking” the retrofit opportunities, while those inside the PZ are forbidden to do the same until the sewer is built. Then, when they can finally build, all the easy retrofits will be gone, thereby giving outside the PZ folks an advantage denied those lot owners living inside the PZ.
Also, of course, is the strange notion that when you have NO WATER, why should you allow anyone to building anything anywhere? Folks building outside the PZ are still sucking the same water out of the same overdrafted aquifer, so when the sewer’s built and the folks inside the PZ are allowed to build and there’s now no water left . . . oh, darn? . . . what then?
In my Jan 1 posting,(“Is that a lawsuit in your pocket . . .”), I mused on the Taxpayers’ Watch lawsuit filed against five of the post-recall LOCSD Board members – individually, personally, not as a Board –alleging “sham settlement monies to their political supporters,” regarding the CSD’s settlement over the Measure B lawsuit originally filed by the recalled CSD Board majority.
In the comment section, a person identifying himself as Richard Le Gros (remember, Anonymous commenters are always anonymous, no matter who they say they are) had this to say about my posting . . .
“ Regarding the $600K settlements.....remember that the GRAND JURY found the settlements VERY QUESTIONABLE. As for that shrill McClendon, his reasoning will be very easy to dismiss in court.”
Well, apparently, “shrill McClendon” reads this blog on occasion and read both my posting and this “anonymous” poster’s comments, and emailed me the following. (It’s weird. My memory of Mr. McClendon was someone who was the exact opposite of “shrill.” Soft spoken, calm, measured, but “shrill?” Naw. Not that I ever saw. And since the subject line on his email stated “Re: That Shrill McClendon’g 2-2-06 LOCSD Public Meeting Presentation. . .” I would have to conclude that Droll McClendon would be more like it.)
In any event, as the person calling himself Richard Le Gros will see (below) the courts apparently have found just the opposite of “easy to dismiss.” What still remains a mystery, given the long history of the court’s ruling against people who try to stop elections, is why on earth the pre-recall Board majority ever filed that lawsuit in the first place. Unless they wanted to set up a post-recall board with a time bomb that would cost the citizens dearly? (If that’s the case, then we’re looking at Medea rather than mendacious.) Which is also why I wondered why some citizens haven’t also filed a lawsuit against Stan, Richard & Gordon – personally and individually – for gross negligence in filing a lawsuit that had such a clearly dangerous track record, thereby setting up the community for a hellacious financial hit. It’s a puzzle.
Then at the CSD meeting on 1/3/07, we learned that the Insurance Company that should have defended the Board Members under the policy requirements (Errors and Omissions Board coverage & etc, which covers this sort of thing) denied the claim--(Jeeze, they must think they’re Blue Shield or something) and so the CSD voted 5-0 to spend mo’money to hire an attorney to deal with both the Taxpayers’ Watch lawsuit and the denied claim.
(A side note: CSD attorney, Julie Biggs, noted that under California law, the district is compelled to furnish legal help when members, acting as a board, are sued. To that end, a law firm was found that agreed to take the case. And for good citizens who actually ARE concerned with the taxpayer’s money, it can only be hoped that the case won’t take too long (i.e. take too much money) to conclude.)
Also at that meeting, Joyce Albright of Taxpayers’ Watch accused the five Board members being sued (Tacker, Schicker, Cescena, Senet & former member, Fouche) of using the settlement money to pay” personal debts out of public coffers.” Personal debts? What? they each took the money to pay off their American Express bill for that Christmas purchase of 100 ginormous brand new HDTVs and a new Bentley??
Al Barrow also went to the podium to note that CCLO and CASE were the entities involved in the case and the settlement and none of the Board directors were members of either of those organizations at that time. So it will remain for a judge to decide what the definition of “crony” is. Or what a “personal debt” is. Or if he finds Mclendon’s settlement reasoning “easy to dismiss.” Or if there are other aspects of the case that are not so easy to dismiss.
On the other hand, IF Taxpayers’ Watch loses the case, will they be able to pay the court costs, seeing as how they still haven’t paid their LAFCO bill? (The CSD’s share of that LAFCO bill, to my knowledge, is being paid for by the citizens of this community, the very folks Taxpayers’ Watch claims to be looking out for.)
Well, it’s quite an interesting approach: Present yourself as the guardian of the people’s pocketbook, file lawsuits claiming fraud and public waste and private use of public coffers & etc, the defense of which costs a bundle out of the people’s pocketbook, and if you lose the cases but don’t pay the court costs, thereby causing the people to have to eat those costs, you still maintain that you’re the guardians of the people’s pocketbook. Very droll, I’d say.
Even more interesting, I spoke with Richard Margetson, who had had a restraining order filed against him before the recall by two recalled Board members. If you remember that case, the former Board Members swore, under penalty of perjury, that Margetson was a danger to them, they feared for their lives, and wanted him kept out of CSD meetings and etc, then lost the case when it was clear that it was all ginned up phony crap designed to use the law to silence a vocal critic. (I referred to it as the Emily Latella Case, from the wonderful Saturday Night Live skit with dear confused Emily nattering on about “violins” in the street, when the topic was “violence” in the streets, only to be corrected, at which point she looks into the camera with a wan smile and says, “Oh, Well, Nevermind.” )
At any rate, the recalled CSD two lost the case, but according to Richard, they have yet to pay the court costs and his attorney’s fees. If true, then an irony: One of the former board members involved with that fiasco, is still living in this town, so there’s a question: Until he pays that legal debt, doesn’t that launch the Dear Silly Donkey’s various comments on this blogsite about fiscal prudence and responsibility into the realm of Hypocritical Hokum?
And finally, I find of great interest, the final sentence of “shrill McClendon’s” piece, which I’ve bolded. Hmmmmm, very interesting. [Posted with permission.]
1
WHY SETTLE THE LITIGATION?
SHORT ANSWERS: (1) To eliminate the District’s litigation costs associated with these actions;
(2) To minimize the amount of attorney’s fees the District might have to pay;
(3) To help implement the settlement the SWRCB presented to the District.
Factual and Procedural Background:
• The LOCSD initiated the Measure B lawsuit against County Clerk Julie Rodewald in an
effort to prevent Measure B from going before the voters.
• Judge Hilton ruled in favor of the LOCSD and ordered Rodewald to keep Measure B off the
ballot.
• The Measure B proponents filed an extraordinary writ with the Court of Appeal seeking a
stay of Judge Hilton’s ruling.
• The Court of Appeal immediately issued an Order staying Judge Hilton’s ruling; later, the
Court of Appeal issued an “Order to Show Cause” commanding Judge Hilton to appear and
explain to the Court of Appeal why his ruling should be allowed to stand.
• Thereafter, Measure B went on the ballot and was approved by the voters.
• On October 14, 2005, attorneys for the Measure B proponents threatened to sue the LOCSD
if it failed to abide by Measure B.
• In October, the LOCSD engaged in Blakeslee-facilitated negotiations with SWRCB staff
regarding the SRF Loan.
Relevant Legal Authority:
There is a long-standing judicial bias against granting pre-ballot challenges:
California Supreme Court: “Finally, "‘it has long been our judicial policy to apply a liberal
construction the [the] power [of initiative and referendum] wherever
it is challenged in order that the right not be improperly annulled. If
doubts can reasonably be resolved in favor of the use of this reserve
power, courts will preserve it. [Citations.]’"” (Assembly v.
Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638, 652. Note: the Supreme Court
cited this case in its August 12, 2005 opinion in Costa v. Superior
Court, where it “conclude[d] that it would not be appropriate to deny
the electorate the opportunity to vote on Proposition 77 at the special
election to be held on November 8, 2005 . . . .”)
2
However, courts will uphold pre-ballot challenges in two situations as long as the defect is clear:
“We recognize that "it is usually more appropriate to review constitutional
and other challenges to ballot propositions or initiative measures after an election
rather than to disrupt the electoral process by preventing the exercise of the people's
franchise, in the absence of some clear showing of invalidity." (Brosnahan v. Eu
(1982) 31 Cal.3d 1, 4 [181 Cal.Rptr. 100, 641 P.2d 200].) However, the courts have
recognized two exceptions to the general rule limiting judicial review of ballot
measures to postelection proceedings. The first is where the electorate lacks the
"power to adopt the proposal in the first instance . . . ." (Id., at p. 6; italics supplied.)
"Thus, for example, election officials have been ordered not to place initiative and
referendum proposals on the ballot on the ground that the electorate did not have the
power to enact them since they were not legislative in character [citations], the
subject matter was not a municipal affair [citations], or the proposal amounted to a
revision of the Constitution rather than an amendment thereto." (Id.)
The second exception to the general rule proscribing preelection judicial
review, and the one invoked by the council in the present case, is where the
substantive provisions of the proposed measure are legally invalid.
"[Even] if a proposed measure is within the scope of the initiative power,
courts retain equitable discretion to examine the measure before the election upon a
compelling showing that the substantive provisions of the initiative are clearly
invalid. (See Harnett v. County of Sacramento (1925) 195 Cal. 676, 683 . . .; Gayle
v. Hamm (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 250, 255 . . .; Note, The Scope of the Initiative and
Referendum in California (1966) 54 Cal.L.Rev. 1717, 1725-1729.)" (American
Federation of Labor v. Eu (1984) 36 Cal.3d 687, 696, fn. 11 [206 Cal.Rptr. 89, 686
P.2d 609].) We shall therefore proceed to consider the council's claim that the
referendum would be "clearly invalid" if enacted by the voters.” (deBottari v. City
Council (1985) 171 Cal. App. 3d 1204, 1209-1210; underlining added.)
The relevance of the foregoing legal authority to the Court of Appeal’s ruling on the Measure B
election is that the Court of Appeal was not persuaded that Measure B fit under either of the two
exceptions for pre-ballot challenges. In other words, it concluded that the LOCSD failed to make
a “compelling showing” that (1) the voters lacked the power to put Measure B on the ballot, or
(2) the provisions of Measure B were “clearly invalid.” If the Court of Appeal had thought
otherwise, then it would have affirmed Judge Hilton’s ruling, and Measure B would have not gone
before the voters.
Legal Analysis:
By successfully bringing Measure B before the voters despite the District’s efforts, attorneys
for the Measure B proponents claimed eligibility to recover their fees even if (1) the vote had gone Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 provides: “Upon motion, a court may award
attorneys’ fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if: (a) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any. With respect to actions involving public entities, this section applies to allowances against, but not in favor of, public entities, and no claim shall be required to be filed therefor.” (1) the other way, or (2) a court later invalidated Measure B. The basis for such a recovery of fees is the Legislature’s codified of the judicially created “private attorney general” rule for recovery of attorneys’ fees in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (“Section 1021.5”).1 The purpose of awarding fees under Section 1021.5 is “to encourage suits effectuating a strong public policy by awarding substantial attorney’s fees to those who successfully bring such suits.” (Daniels v. McKinney (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 42, 49.) According to the court in Woodland Hills Residents Assn. v. City Council (1979) 23 Cal.3d 917, 933, the private attorney general statute reflects a legislative policy that privately initiated lawsuits are often essential to the effectuation of the fundamental public policies embodied in constitutional or statutory provisions, and that, without some mechanism authorizing the award of attorneys fees, private actions to enforce such important public policies will as a practical matter frequently be infeasible.
The Measure B proponent would have been entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees under
Section 1021.5 if they showed that (1) their defense of Measure B “has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest,” (2) “a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or onpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons,” and (3) “the necessity and burden of private enforcement are such as to make the award appropriate.” (Woodland Hills Residents Assn. v. City Council, supra, 23 Cal.3d at 935.)
It was likely that the Measure B proponents could have shown that they met all three factors.
Given the relevant law, there is no question that they met the first factor:
“. . . [T]he "state constitutional right of initiative or referendum is 'one of the most
precious rights of our democratic process." [Citation.] These powers are reserved
to the people, not granted to them. Thus, it is our duty to " ' "jealously guard" ' "
these powers and construe the relevant constitutional provisions liberally in favor of
the people's right to exercise the powers of initiative and referendum. (Rossi v. Brown
(1995) 9 Cal. 4th 688, 695 [38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 363, 889 P.2d 557].)" (Pala Band of
Mission Indians v. Board of Supervisors of San Diego County (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th
565, 573-574.)” (Wal-Mart Real Estate Trust v. City Council of the City of
San Marcos (Sept. 7, 2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 614.)
(See also Hull v. Rossi (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1763, an opinion from the local Court of
Appeal awarding attorney’s fees to a real party in interest.)
4
Since more than six thousand voters voted for and against Measure B, this factor would have
been met as well. Finally, given the type of action that the Measure B proponents were defending – the right of the people to exercise a constitution right – the third factor would have been met.
Once eligibility to be awarded attorney’s fees is established, the inquiry focuses on the
amount of fees to be awarded. Here, the court sets a reasonable hourly “touchstone” or
“lodestar” rate based on that prevailing in the community for similar work by attorneys with
comparable experience and expertise. (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 640-641.)
“The Court is not limited to using standard billing rates in setting reasonable hourly
compensation . . . , rather the Court is obliged to use the ‘market value’ approach which is
more likely to entice competent counsel to undertake difficult public interest cases.”
(San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino, supra, 155
Cal.App.3d at 755.) In approving market rate awards for the enforcement of statutory rights
without pecuniary recovery, the United States Supreme Court has said, “the amount of fees
awarded [under section 1988] shall be governed by the same standards which prevail in other
types of equally complex . . . litigation, such as antitrust cases and not be reduced because
the rights involved may be nonpecuniary in nature.” (Blum v. Stenson (1984) 104 S.Ct. 1541,
1547 fn.11.)
Based on my own experience in similar cases, the attorneys for the Measure B
proponents would have likely sought a lodestar in the $300-$400 an hour range. However, in
settlement negotiations, the District got them to agree to not only cap their total fees at less than their full hours, but to also accept a significantly reduced lodestar of about $200 per hour. As a result, the attorney’s fees paid were roughly half of what they would have been had the court set the lodestar at market rates.
Moreover, after multiplying the number of hours spent by the reasonable hourly rate, the
lodestar can be adjusted up or down by using a “multiplier” that’s based on several factors. (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.) We knew that the Measure B attorneys were going to seek an upward “multiplier” to their lodestar based on the fact that (1) their contingency representation of the Measure B proponents during the litigation; (2) their intensive and expedited work that was required during their opposition to the District’s lawsuit, and; (3) the complexity and importance of the litigation. Notably, in Greene v. Dillingham Construction, Inc. (2002) 101 Cal. App. 4th 418, the court expressly held that refusing to consider contingent risk as a factor in a decision not to apply a multiplier is reversible error.
However, in all of our settlement agreements, we got the attorneys to agree to waive their
right to seek a Serrano multiplier, which further reduced the District’s potential exposure.
In sum, by settling the Measure B litigation, the District reduced its potential exposure to a
judgment for private attorney general fees to a fraction of what it could have been. For example, if the Measure B attorney had established their hourly lodestar at $350 per hour and had been awarded a multiplier of 1.50 (neither number is uncommon), the District would have had to pay in over $325,000 in attorney’s fees in the Measure B litigation alone – $200,000 more than it actually did.
If one adds to this number the amount it would have cost the District for its attorneys to continue prosecuting the Measure B litigation, and the additional amount of hours the Measure B attorneys would have spent defending it, the District’s potential exposure for continuing to pursue this action after the Court of Appeal’s ruling might well have exceeded $500,000.
A similar analysis applies to the other cases.
As a practical matter with contingency lawyers, they have no “end game” to recover their fees except to win. Consequently, they do not usually give up until all possible avenues to achieving victory are exhausted. Had they been successful on even one of the remaining cases, the District could have found itself facing the prospect of having to pay significant private attorney general fees – again, in addition to the significant fees it would have paid to its own attorneys.
The SWRCB’s Settlement Offer to the District.
The final factor relevant to the District’s settlement of the Measure B litigation was the District’s
efforts to obtain certain concessions from the Measure B proponents that would have helped
facilitate the District’s implementation of the first “final offer” settlement proposal SWRCB staff
presented to the District in negotiations brokered by Assemblyman Blakeslee. The District was
hoping to (1) fast track a new election to modify or rescind Measure B by conducting the election
itself, and (2) forestall a future lawsuit by reaching consensus with the Measure B proponents on
which “feasible” alternatives would be presented to the voters if the vote required by Measure B hadto take place. Unfortunately, after the District obtained these concessions from the Measure B proponents, two things happened. First, the County declined to enter into a stipulated judgment addressing these issues.
Second, thanks to a Public Records Act request presented by the San Luis
Obispo Tribune to the SWRCB, it was revealed that the SWRCB had undertaken the Blakeslee
negotiations in bad faith and had presented their “final offer” to the District knowing full well that
the SWRCB never intended to approve it even if the District accepted it. [emphasis mine]
And Now Onto Something REALLY Serious
At the 1/3 CSD Board Meeting, Maria Kelly announced another Water Conservation Faire,” Saturday, January 19, 10 – 2 at the Methodist Church at Pine and LOVR. There’ll be a variety of experts there to help you figure out ways to reduce your water use.
In addition, at the CSD meeting, during public comment, it was noted that on Jan 15, the Board of Supervisors will be discussing the water conservation and retrofit issues. Right now, the plan is to allow building outside the PZ if builders or developers retrofit X-number of existing houses. The concern expressed was this: You now allow builders outside the PZ to build by “cherry picking” the retrofit opportunities, while those inside the PZ are forbidden to do the same until the sewer is built. Then, when they can finally build, all the easy retrofits will be gone, thereby giving outside the PZ folks an advantage denied those lot owners living inside the PZ.
Also, of course, is the strange notion that when you have NO WATER, why should you allow anyone to building anything anywhere? Folks building outside the PZ are still sucking the same water out of the same overdrafted aquifer, so when the sewer’s built and the folks inside the PZ are allowed to build and there’s now no water left . . . oh, darn? . . . what then?
Friday, January 04, 2008
Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, The Bay News, Tolosa Press, SLO, CA for
January 4, 2008
Shoeless Joe Forevermore
In American life, there are no second acts
F. Scott Fitzgerald
It’s odd that the man who wrote what is arguably The Great American Novel --The Great Gatsby --could have gotten it so wrong. In American life, there is nothing BUT second acts. Certainly, in our Era of No Accountability, we no longer bother to put paper bags over people’s heads for even five minutes of earned shame before banishment into the outer darkness of a well deserved obscurity. Nope, instead, it’s a quick appearance on Oprah for some tear-spilling phony repentance, followed by a multi-million dollar book contract and a very lucrative post-sin life speechifying on the rubber chicken circuit.
And I suspect that trait of No Accountability and Nothing BUT Second Acts preceded Fitzgerald. After all, the first Great American Novel was Huckleberry Finn. And when Finn, the quintessential American character, needed a second act, he simply “lit out for the territory.” No accountability there. Book contract to follow.
Add in a few other Great American Traits – our love of Money & Winning at All Costs, our Addiction to Fame, even fifteen minutes of it, and, ironically, our extraordinary tolerance for pious, hypocritical humbug – and you’ve got the present “Baseball Doping Scandal” in a nutshell.
The sports writers had a ball, all that hand-wringing --Baseball’s ruined! Black clouds of shame are hanging over our national pastime! The sport is tainted forever! -- while one column over from their jeremiads was a story on how management was busy signing multi-million dollar contracts for next year with some of the dopers just named in the Mitchell report. So much for taint. Forget accountability. Time to move on. Too much money at stake here for both players and management. Batter up!
And the fans? Well, they don’t care. Was their hero’s bulked up socko performance the result of chemicals? So what? Socko’s all that counts nowadays. And, anyway, everybody’s doin’ it, including the rest of pill-popping America; everyone looking for that edge, that boost, that little secret needed to make the big win, the big score, by any means necessary. You only go around once, grab for the gusto, even if it comes out of a container of pills, a bottle of booze, or the end of a syringe.
And there, of course, is the real tragedy when a “sport” gets steroided up into Bottom Line Big Business – professional boxers brain damaged at 40, football players’ ruined bodies turning them into broken old men at 30, careers gone in a flash leaving the players with years of pain, diminished capacity, their livelihood gone. They don’t call them the Boys of Summer for nothing. Like mayflies, too many athletes’ professional lives are equally brief. And how many ball players are more than willing to accept a lifetime of disability that comes with trading their health and future for that dream slot in Cooperstown? That, and a $36 million contract?
Ironically, baseball is particularly vulnerable to “taint” since it is a sport of record-keeping, of minutia. Whole games can be resurrected and replayed from out of the distant past, all based on those records, every strike-out, every ball, every walk or hit or bunt recorded faithfully by record-obsessed fans. Who played what, where, and how the weather was.
So it is a particular irony that those records will now forever be suspect. After all, how can you indulge in the game of Let’s Compare Players when you suspect one of them somehow magically changed his neck size from “normal” to Hulk in a matter of months? Should we now handicap each hit and start a new Cooperstown record? Plus ten points for proven clean; minus 7.9 points for steroid-dirty; 6.8 for HGF enhanced; and 4.5 for suspect?
And what does it matter anyway? If it’s all about money and fame, two things that almost always corrupt everything they touch, why should we even bother? Except to indulge our love of pious humbug – Aw, say it ain’t so, Joe, -- wink-nudge – followed by some pretend accountability before lighting out for the territory for another act, big money contract in hand.
Pass the syringe, and Play ball!
January 4, 2008
Shoeless Joe Forevermore
In American life, there are no second acts
F. Scott Fitzgerald
It’s odd that the man who wrote what is arguably The Great American Novel --The Great Gatsby --could have gotten it so wrong. In American life, there is nothing BUT second acts. Certainly, in our Era of No Accountability, we no longer bother to put paper bags over people’s heads for even five minutes of earned shame before banishment into the outer darkness of a well deserved obscurity. Nope, instead, it’s a quick appearance on Oprah for some tear-spilling phony repentance, followed by a multi-million dollar book contract and a very lucrative post-sin life speechifying on the rubber chicken circuit.
And I suspect that trait of No Accountability and Nothing BUT Second Acts preceded Fitzgerald. After all, the first Great American Novel was Huckleberry Finn. And when Finn, the quintessential American character, needed a second act, he simply “lit out for the territory.” No accountability there. Book contract to follow.
Add in a few other Great American Traits – our love of Money & Winning at All Costs, our Addiction to Fame, even fifteen minutes of it, and, ironically, our extraordinary tolerance for pious, hypocritical humbug – and you’ve got the present “Baseball Doping Scandal” in a nutshell.
The sports writers had a ball, all that hand-wringing --Baseball’s ruined! Black clouds of shame are hanging over our national pastime! The sport is tainted forever! -- while one column over from their jeremiads was a story on how management was busy signing multi-million dollar contracts for next year with some of the dopers just named in the Mitchell report. So much for taint. Forget accountability. Time to move on. Too much money at stake here for both players and management. Batter up!
And the fans? Well, they don’t care. Was their hero’s bulked up socko performance the result of chemicals? So what? Socko’s all that counts nowadays. And, anyway, everybody’s doin’ it, including the rest of pill-popping America; everyone looking for that edge, that boost, that little secret needed to make the big win, the big score, by any means necessary. You only go around once, grab for the gusto, even if it comes out of a container of pills, a bottle of booze, or the end of a syringe.
And there, of course, is the real tragedy when a “sport” gets steroided up into Bottom Line Big Business – professional boxers brain damaged at 40, football players’ ruined bodies turning them into broken old men at 30, careers gone in a flash leaving the players with years of pain, diminished capacity, their livelihood gone. They don’t call them the Boys of Summer for nothing. Like mayflies, too many athletes’ professional lives are equally brief. And how many ball players are more than willing to accept a lifetime of disability that comes with trading their health and future for that dream slot in Cooperstown? That, and a $36 million contract?
Ironically, baseball is particularly vulnerable to “taint” since it is a sport of record-keeping, of minutia. Whole games can be resurrected and replayed from out of the distant past, all based on those records, every strike-out, every ball, every walk or hit or bunt recorded faithfully by record-obsessed fans. Who played what, where, and how the weather was.
So it is a particular irony that those records will now forever be suspect. After all, how can you indulge in the game of Let’s Compare Players when you suspect one of them somehow magically changed his neck size from “normal” to Hulk in a matter of months? Should we now handicap each hit and start a new Cooperstown record? Plus ten points for proven clean; minus 7.9 points for steroid-dirty; 6.8 for HGF enhanced; and 4.5 for suspect?
And what does it matter anyway? If it’s all about money and fame, two things that almost always corrupt everything they touch, why should we even bother? Except to indulge our love of pious humbug – Aw, say it ain’t so, Joe, -- wink-nudge – followed by some pretend accountability before lighting out for the territory for another act, big money contract in hand.
Pass the syringe, and Play ball!
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Is That A Lawsuit In Your Pocket Or Are You Just . . . Oh, Wait, It’s Taxpayers Watch, of Course It’s a Lawsuit . . .
County Roundup notice, on Thursday the CSD will consider hiring another law firm to represent four CSD Board Members (three presently seated, one former) in a lawsuit brought by Taxpayers Watch suing the board members personally.
Notes the Tribune, “The lawsuit alleges that the board members paid more than $600,000 in “sham settlement monies to their political supporters” and asks for those board members to be held individually responsible for reimbursing the district’s coffers.” The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. Thursday at the South Bay Community Center . . .
Personally, I don't know where Taxpayers Watch is getting the money for this lawsuit. They tried and failed to get LAFCO to destroy the CSD. LAFCO sent them a ginormous bill for their efforts, a bill that still hasn't been paid off. And I find it odd that Taxpayers Watch's rationale for all this suing is to safeguard the taxpayers' money, when, in reality, these lawsuits are costing the taxpayer a bundle. Well, in for a penny, in for a pound, I guess.
I’ll sure attend that meeting because somebody has to ‘splain something to me. It was ‘splained years ago by attorney McClendon, who was representing the CSD after the recall election. So, let’s hope my memory of it is reasonably correct:
According to McClendon, part of the settlement agreement – a big chunk of it – was made because the previous, recalled board majority – Stan Gufstafson, Gordon Hensley and Richard Le Gros – had voted to file a lawsuit to stop Measure B from getting on the ballot. If memory serves, a local judge agreed with the "old" CSD and blocked the initiative, but the initiative's backers filed an appeal and the appeals court in Ventura set that first judgment aside in, what, 20 minutes, which allowed the election to proceed.
According to McClendon again, the California courts have a long record of really, reeeeeely hammering anyone who tries that – stopping initiatives before the election, no matter how silly the initiatives may be. Again, according to McClendon, the courts feel the vote is “sacred” and so elections must be allowed to go ahead unless the issue is clearly unconstitutional, and then, AFTER the election, folks can file in court to block the implementation of whatever was voted on.
Again, according to McClendon, in filing to block Measure B, the recalled Board members set up the CSD for a real hammering since Measure B was “arguable” as to its constitutionality and "arguable" on its technicalities, so the CSD would have lost on that narrow basis and having lost would face settlement “damages” in an amount mandated by a Judge using a set formula that very likely would have resulted in the CSD getting hammered for 3 -5 times the “regular” damages amount.
In short, the recalled three CSD members set up the community (and the new board) for a difficult decision – continue to defend the suit (that they didn't file but inherited) and lose and face 3-5 times a “regular” damages amount or settle for the smaller amount and consider that you got off lucky. Either way, it was a huge and totally unnecessary financial hit for everyone in the community.
So, here’s the question: Why isn’t somebody suing Stan, Gordon and Richard – personally – for unnecessarily costing the CSD a pile of money? Even more interesting, since these three unnecessarily voted to start work on the Formerly-Known-As-Tri-W project shortly before the recall election, thereby gambling with and (as it turned out) pounding gazillions into the ground, why aren’t they being sued individually for . . . well, wastefully pounding millions of tax dollars into the ground? Or maybe running a “sham” start-up so as to ensure their “political supporters,” i.e. the construction companies who donated to their “No on the Recall” campaign, got a good chunk of money into their pockets before the whole deal was shut down?
In short, maybe what we need here is another group playing Medea to the teeth, (their motto: Let's sauce the goose AND the gander!) by suing Stan, Gordon & Richard -- personally.
Well, surely one of the attorneys for the CSD will need to ‘splain all this to me at Thursday’s meeting.
And Now For The Oh, You Just Knew THAT Was Gonna Happen Department:
Yes, yes, we know. It was just a matter of time. . . .
Rabobank got robbed.
And Finally, A Sad Goodbye
Was downtown over the holiday only to see the huge Going Out Of Business sign in the window of Country Classics in the wonderful Sinsheimer Bros Building on Monterrey St. Spoke with the owner, Janet Baird, and alas, one of my favorite places to just poke around and smell of pot pourri, will be closing. Lagging sales for a variety of reasons, high rent and even higher rent once the earthquake retrofit is finished, interrupted business when the Big Dig for the Copeland Project gets underway across the street, all contributed to her decision to close.
It’s a story that will repeat itself throughout the downtown area as more and more small businesse move or go out of business. How it will ultimately shake out is anyone’s guess. It’s sad to me that Downtown SLOtown may turn into Anywhere USA, a place filled with little more than high end chain stores. Same old, same old.
On the other hand, if wonderful and unique places like County Classics can successfully relocate in another town, well, maybe that’s to the good. No need to go to SLOTown at all, just head for the outlying areas to find the special businesses that make this county such a great place to live.
Meantime, Get Out The Bumpershoots.
And pray for the kind of plentiful but soft rain that will fill the aquifers and lakes. Then get out your brelly and go puddle jumping.
County Roundup notice, on Thursday the CSD will consider hiring another law firm to represent four CSD Board Members (three presently seated, one former) in a lawsuit brought by Taxpayers Watch suing the board members personally.
Notes the Tribune, “The lawsuit alleges that the board members paid more than $600,000 in “sham settlement monies to their political supporters” and asks for those board members to be held individually responsible for reimbursing the district’s coffers.” The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. Thursday at the South Bay Community Center . . .
Personally, I don't know where Taxpayers Watch is getting the money for this lawsuit. They tried and failed to get LAFCO to destroy the CSD. LAFCO sent them a ginormous bill for their efforts, a bill that still hasn't been paid off. And I find it odd that Taxpayers Watch's rationale for all this suing is to safeguard the taxpayers' money, when, in reality, these lawsuits are costing the taxpayer a bundle. Well, in for a penny, in for a pound, I guess.
I’ll sure attend that meeting because somebody has to ‘splain something to me. It was ‘splained years ago by attorney McClendon, who was representing the CSD after the recall election. So, let’s hope my memory of it is reasonably correct:
According to McClendon, part of the settlement agreement – a big chunk of it – was made because the previous, recalled board majority – Stan Gufstafson, Gordon Hensley and Richard Le Gros – had voted to file a lawsuit to stop Measure B from getting on the ballot. If memory serves, a local judge agreed with the "old" CSD and blocked the initiative, but the initiative's backers filed an appeal and the appeals court in Ventura set that first judgment aside in, what, 20 minutes, which allowed the election to proceed.
According to McClendon again, the California courts have a long record of really, reeeeeely hammering anyone who tries that – stopping initiatives before the election, no matter how silly the initiatives may be. Again, according to McClendon, the courts feel the vote is “sacred” and so elections must be allowed to go ahead unless the issue is clearly unconstitutional, and then, AFTER the election, folks can file in court to block the implementation of whatever was voted on.
Again, according to McClendon, in filing to block Measure B, the recalled Board members set up the CSD for a real hammering since Measure B was “arguable” as to its constitutionality and "arguable" on its technicalities, so the CSD would have lost on that narrow basis and having lost would face settlement “damages” in an amount mandated by a Judge using a set formula that very likely would have resulted in the CSD getting hammered for 3 -5 times the “regular” damages amount.
In short, the recalled three CSD members set up the community (and the new board) for a difficult decision – continue to defend the suit (that they didn't file but inherited) and lose and face 3-5 times a “regular” damages amount or settle for the smaller amount and consider that you got off lucky. Either way, it was a huge and totally unnecessary financial hit for everyone in the community.
So, here’s the question: Why isn’t somebody suing Stan, Gordon and Richard – personally – for unnecessarily costing the CSD a pile of money? Even more interesting, since these three unnecessarily voted to start work on the Formerly-Known-As-Tri-W project shortly before the recall election, thereby gambling with and (as it turned out) pounding gazillions into the ground, why aren’t they being sued individually for . . . well, wastefully pounding millions of tax dollars into the ground? Or maybe running a “sham” start-up so as to ensure their “political supporters,” i.e. the construction companies who donated to their “No on the Recall” campaign, got a good chunk of money into their pockets before the whole deal was shut down?
In short, maybe what we need here is another group playing Medea to the teeth, (their motto: Let's sauce the goose AND the gander!) by suing Stan, Gordon & Richard -- personally.
Well, surely one of the attorneys for the CSD will need to ‘splain all this to me at Thursday’s meeting.
And Now For The Oh, You Just Knew THAT Was Gonna Happen Department:
Yes, yes, we know. It was just a matter of time. . . .
Rabobank got robbed.
And Finally, A Sad Goodbye
Was downtown over the holiday only to see the huge Going Out Of Business sign in the window of Country Classics in the wonderful Sinsheimer Bros Building on Monterrey St. Spoke with the owner, Janet Baird, and alas, one of my favorite places to just poke around and smell of pot pourri, will be closing. Lagging sales for a variety of reasons, high rent and even higher rent once the earthquake retrofit is finished, interrupted business when the Big Dig for the Copeland Project gets underway across the street, all contributed to her decision to close.
It’s a story that will repeat itself throughout the downtown area as more and more small businesse move or go out of business. How it will ultimately shake out is anyone’s guess. It’s sad to me that Downtown SLOtown may turn into Anywhere USA, a place filled with little more than high end chain stores. Same old, same old.
On the other hand, if wonderful and unique places like County Classics can successfully relocate in another town, well, maybe that’s to the good. No need to go to SLOTown at all, just head for the outlying areas to find the special businesses that make this county such a great place to live.
Meantime, Get Out The Bumpershoots.
And pray for the kind of plentiful but soft rain that will fill the aquifers and lakes. Then get out your brelly and go puddle jumping.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
O.K. Time To Stop Walking While Stupid, Please; or How I Learned To Stop Shooting Myself In The Foot Because The Limping Was Slowing Me Down Some
Mother Calhoun hopes you all had a nice holiday break from The Sewer Wars? Unfortunately, she wasn’t so lucky and has been bombarded with daily emails and cc’s of an ongoing squibble-squabble that just kept getting sillier and sillier. So, perhaps, it’s time for Mother Calhoun to say a few words?
Below, is Mr. Tom Murphy, CEO of AES & the “Reclamator.” This email made Mother Calhoun think of a Fuller Brush man coming to a potential customer’s door and saying, “If you don’t buy this really swell vegetable brush, I’ll shoot you in the kneecaps.” For some weird reason, Mother Calhoun doesn’t think that’s been proven to be a particularly successful sales ploy. And, as the New Times’ “Shredder” has pointed out, threatening to sue a bankrupt entity for big bucks . . .? Uh . . . . And threatening the good people of this community individually, based on their assessment vote, is either a very, very bad joke that went awry, or the ka-boom of a gun going off with Mr. Murphy’s foot as the unfortunate recipient of the bullet.
This email was among many emails between Murphy& Mark Low & The Water Guy. Alas, most of them just got silly, so I’m not going to post them here. They’re embarrassing. But, The Water Guy’s email below DOES lay out a procedure that can and will go a long way towards moving this all from a war of words into something somebody can actually deal with.
And, finally, Gail McPherson notes where the REAL problem and concern lie: Make sure The Process has sufficient will and onsite-expertise available to honestly evaluate any onsite plans during the due diligence phase, not simply treat onsites as “also-rans,” as in, “O.K. O.K. already, I’ve looked at your plans thank you for coming there’s the door.”
Murphy’s email:
Dear _________,
The “County Process” is already “dead”. It doesn’t matter if we are in the County process or not, the County isn’t going to be able to borrow the money to do the project. The assessments are illegal, if they attempt to asses my house, they will soon find that out. And, when the County goes to borrow money with the old “guaranteed hookup” ordnance to guarantee revenue and payback, we will just notify the lender of the RECLAMATOR at peoples homes and that such an outdated “guaranteed hookup ordnance” concept doesn’t work anymore as some properties now only have “water”, i.e. “Recycled water” which is defined in California Water Code Secton 13050 as a “Valuable Resource”. A “guaranteed hookup” doesn’t guarantee a “revenue” stream to pay for the loan. Any “required hookup” only creates a NEGATIVE REVENUE STREAM.
So, _____, how can the County pay back the money they would have to borrow to build a “non-federally compliant, non-affordable, non-sustainable, energy waster, regulatory created non-point source pollutant generator (it is already a matter of totally industry awareness that a centralized sewer waste management method is the number one source of pollution of our nation’s waters, even beats out septic tanks), and what tops it off is, even if they put the thing in, we will still be providing our service and the customers they might have will eventually disconnect from the sewer (and subscribe to our services) at some point so they can have back control of their water.
Again_____ these guys are already dead and they just don’t want to admit it. These guys aren’t stupid, they are engineers, however, they really are slow to take up change and admit that they have lost control.
It is over for them, I’m not going to do business with the County anyway, even if they called me on Christmas day. I gave them an ultimatum and a date and they didn’t take me up on it. They are out.
Now, we are going to give the LOCSD the last opportunity to do business with us. That should be your focus now, as if they don’t, I am going to go after them for $100,000,000 in damages.
The result will be Los Osos will have to pay the award ($20,000.00 per DUE), AES will then be given the project anyway as an additional reward as the law requires it, make the typical profit it would have made anyway, the grants that I have telling everyone about will kick in to pay for the project and Los Osos still got the most affordable project while AES made an additional $100,000,000 and it only cost each homeowner $20,000,000 and not $70,000,000 per DUE.
However, I am going to exempt all who voted NO and who DIDN’T VOTE. Only the ones who protested our program and voted “yes” are going to be the ones who must pay all “reward” amounts. After all, it will only be fair, don’t ya think?
The BRIDGE is OUT! The “COUNTY PROCESS” IS NO LONGER OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE…………….
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO THE ________
Best regards,
D. Thomas Murphy
Inventor,
RECLAMATOR, “The Future of Water”
(775) 848-8800
Email from The Water Guy:
Dear Mr. Murphy:
Here is the background/data/proof of concept for the high performance biofiltration treatment concept. There are two papers attached. One provides a general review of the technology, along with some examples of its implementation and capabilities. The other explores in more detail nitrogen reduction capability of the technology. The attached tables accompany that paper.
Past experience indicates that you will immediately go after the circumstance that the high performance biofiltration concept may not produce total N concentrations of <10 mg/L. As we have discussed (and apparently disagree upon), that is not necessary in most situations. Nitrogen can be a fertilizer, a valuable resource just like the water is, if applied properly -- e.g., by dispersing treated effluent with nitrogen concentration <20 mg/L in a subsurface drip irrigation field to fertilize the landscaping as well as obtaining an irrigation benefit. There is no prohibition in the "law" against including the soil mantle in the "treatment zone". However, if it is determined that <10 mg/L out of the pipe is required under the conditions of a given circumstance, you can put a "Nitrex" filter on the end of the treatment train, problem solved. So what we have here is a not just a demonstrated "best" technology on the terms that you claim it must meet, we have a technology with a long history of--thus a well-deserved reputation for--stability, robustness, consistency and reliability, even in the face of difficult operating conditions. ESPECIALLY in the face of difficult operating conditions, such as the very lightly supervised on-lot system environment, where any number of "out of bounds" events WILL occur.
From all appearances to date, what you have is an experiment, some ideas (no pun intended) that have been strung together. While they may indeed produce a viable treatment concept, its long-term capabilities--either in terms of consistent effluent quality or in terms of basic operational reliability--remain to be demonstrated. As has been noted, your widget has failed--badly--to perform up to your claims in at least two publicly-funded, independent demonstration projects. It would appear that what you need to find is a demonstration site, your own "Washington Island". AFTER you run your widget through something like that, AFTER you identify its strengths and weaknesses, AFTER you figure out how to minimize or eliminate the "glitches" that WILL occur, THEN you could in good conscience promote your widget in a situation like Los Osos.
That is what the situation appears to be. If indeed you do have in hand the operating history and evaluation that matches in rigor to that presented for the high performance biofiltration concept, we still await you sharing it. In any case, you have been shown that there are other technological strategies that can do what you claim is the sole province of your widget.
Best regards,
David Venhuizen, P.E.Planning and Engineering as if Water and Environmental Values Matter www.venhuizen-ww.com
And McPherson’s observations: (excerpt)
The possible solutions are screened based on meeting criteria from a complete needs assessment. Then the best value options that meet the criteria are placed on the table. Is TRIW adequate to remain on the table? Can any other plans be modified to allow them to remain on the table? Based on the criteria which options and configurations of systems are left???? The rest fall away.
Because the needs assessment was limited and not well knitted together or updated from the TRI W failure, decentralized isn't on the main table.
EIR affords the final comparisons of options and technology/site configurations ...and decentralized must be here as well as Ripley plan. The flaw in the rough screening was setting artificial limits to the "solution paradigm" to centralized only. This allowed an early process failure to develop defensible "best value" project criteria. This prematurely knocked decentralized and Ripley out of the running favor of centralized only and Carollo only.
This can be corrected now and evaluations can be made complete so there is no question for the legitimacy for the process.
Gail
Let me repeat that:
“The flaw in the rough screening was setting artificial limits to the “solution paradigm” to centralized only. This allowed an early process failure to develop defensible “best value” project criteria. This prematurely knocked decentralized and Ripley [My note: also Pio Lomobardo’s decentralized cluster/water-reuse plan?] out of the running in favor of centralized only and Carollo only. This can be corrected now and evaluations can be made complete so there is no question for the legitimacy for the process.”
Meantime . . . .
. . . . This can be corrected now. . . yes, IF the citizens will make their voices heard that onsite will be evaluated by experts in onsite programs and on a level field with the other options, not simply something cursorily reviewed at the last minute as window-dressing to prop up a Process that was off kilter from day one.
Meantime, enough with Mr. Murphy & Mr. Low’s Word War 2.0. It’s simply too silly. The documentation path is clear, the test-case path is clear, the necessity of getting a definition of what “is” is, is clear, necessary data required for a fair evaluation should be clear. All of which needs to go to the county and the RWQCB. Or Mr. Murphy can head to federal court and file whatever he needs to file.
In the meantime, Mother Calhoun sez: “Threatening residents isn’t included in that list of Things To Do, Thank You.”
Have a happy New Year!
Mother Calhoun hopes you all had a nice holiday break from The Sewer Wars? Unfortunately, she wasn’t so lucky and has been bombarded with daily emails and cc’s of an ongoing squibble-squabble that just kept getting sillier and sillier. So, perhaps, it’s time for Mother Calhoun to say a few words?
Below, is Mr. Tom Murphy, CEO of AES & the “Reclamator.” This email made Mother Calhoun think of a Fuller Brush man coming to a potential customer’s door and saying, “If you don’t buy this really swell vegetable brush, I’ll shoot you in the kneecaps.” For some weird reason, Mother Calhoun doesn’t think that’s been proven to be a particularly successful sales ploy. And, as the New Times’ “Shredder” has pointed out, threatening to sue a bankrupt entity for big bucks . . .? Uh . . . . And threatening the good people of this community individually, based on their assessment vote, is either a very, very bad joke that went awry, or the ka-boom of a gun going off with Mr. Murphy’s foot as the unfortunate recipient of the bullet.
This email was among many emails between Murphy& Mark Low & The Water Guy. Alas, most of them just got silly, so I’m not going to post them here. They’re embarrassing. But, The Water Guy’s email below DOES lay out a procedure that can and will go a long way towards moving this all from a war of words into something somebody can actually deal with.
And, finally, Gail McPherson notes where the REAL problem and concern lie: Make sure The Process has sufficient will and onsite-expertise available to honestly evaluate any onsite plans during the due diligence phase, not simply treat onsites as “also-rans,” as in, “O.K. O.K. already, I’ve looked at your plans thank you for coming there’s the door.”
Murphy’s email:
Dear _________,
The “County Process” is already “dead”. It doesn’t matter if we are in the County process or not, the County isn’t going to be able to borrow the money to do the project. The assessments are illegal, if they attempt to asses my house, they will soon find that out. And, when the County goes to borrow money with the old “guaranteed hookup” ordnance to guarantee revenue and payback, we will just notify the lender of the RECLAMATOR at peoples homes and that such an outdated “guaranteed hookup ordnance” concept doesn’t work anymore as some properties now only have “water”, i.e. “Recycled water” which is defined in California Water Code Secton 13050 as a “Valuable Resource”. A “guaranteed hookup” doesn’t guarantee a “revenue” stream to pay for the loan. Any “required hookup” only creates a NEGATIVE REVENUE STREAM.
So, _____, how can the County pay back the money they would have to borrow to build a “non-federally compliant, non-affordable, non-sustainable, energy waster, regulatory created non-point source pollutant generator (it is already a matter of totally industry awareness that a centralized sewer waste management method is the number one source of pollution of our nation’s waters, even beats out septic tanks), and what tops it off is, even if they put the thing in, we will still be providing our service and the customers they might have will eventually disconnect from the sewer (and subscribe to our services) at some point so they can have back control of their water.
Again_____ these guys are already dead and they just don’t want to admit it. These guys aren’t stupid, they are engineers, however, they really are slow to take up change and admit that they have lost control.
It is over for them, I’m not going to do business with the County anyway, even if they called me on Christmas day. I gave them an ultimatum and a date and they didn’t take me up on it. They are out.
Now, we are going to give the LOCSD the last opportunity to do business with us. That should be your focus now, as if they don’t, I am going to go after them for $100,000,000 in damages.
The result will be Los Osos will have to pay the award ($20,000.00 per DUE), AES will then be given the project anyway as an additional reward as the law requires it, make the typical profit it would have made anyway, the grants that I have telling everyone about will kick in to pay for the project and Los Osos still got the most affordable project while AES made an additional $100,000,000 and it only cost each homeowner $20,000,000 and not $70,000,000 per DUE.
However, I am going to exempt all who voted NO and who DIDN’T VOTE. Only the ones who protested our program and voted “yes” are going to be the ones who must pay all “reward” amounts. After all, it will only be fair, don’t ya think?
The BRIDGE is OUT! The “COUNTY PROCESS” IS NO LONGER OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE…………….
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO THE ________
Best regards,
D. Thomas Murphy
Inventor,
RECLAMATOR, “The Future of Water”
(775) 848-8800
Email from The Water Guy:
Dear Mr. Murphy:
Here is the background/data/proof of concept for the high performance biofiltration treatment concept. There are two papers attached. One provides a general review of the technology, along with some examples of its implementation and capabilities. The other explores in more detail nitrogen reduction capability of the technology. The attached tables accompany that paper.
Past experience indicates that you will immediately go after the circumstance that the high performance biofiltration concept may not produce total N concentrations of <10 mg/L. As we have discussed (and apparently disagree upon), that is not necessary in most situations. Nitrogen can be a fertilizer, a valuable resource just like the water is, if applied properly -- e.g., by dispersing treated effluent with nitrogen concentration <20 mg/L in a subsurface drip irrigation field to fertilize the landscaping as well as obtaining an irrigation benefit. There is no prohibition in the "law" against including the soil mantle in the "treatment zone". However, if it is determined that <10 mg/L out of the pipe is required under the conditions of a given circumstance, you can put a "Nitrex" filter on the end of the treatment train, problem solved. So what we have here is a not just a demonstrated "best" technology on the terms that you claim it must meet, we have a technology with a long history of--thus a well-deserved reputation for--stability, robustness, consistency and reliability, even in the face of difficult operating conditions. ESPECIALLY in the face of difficult operating conditions, such as the very lightly supervised on-lot system environment, where any number of "out of bounds" events WILL occur.
From all appearances to date, what you have is an experiment, some ideas (no pun intended) that have been strung together. While they may indeed produce a viable treatment concept, its long-term capabilities--either in terms of consistent effluent quality or in terms of basic operational reliability--remain to be demonstrated. As has been noted, your widget has failed--badly--to perform up to your claims in at least two publicly-funded, independent demonstration projects. It would appear that what you need to find is a demonstration site, your own "Washington Island". AFTER you run your widget through something like that, AFTER you identify its strengths and weaknesses, AFTER you figure out how to minimize or eliminate the "glitches" that WILL occur, THEN you could in good conscience promote your widget in a situation like Los Osos.
That is what the situation appears to be. If indeed you do have in hand the operating history and evaluation that matches in rigor to that presented for the high performance biofiltration concept, we still await you sharing it. In any case, you have been shown that there are other technological strategies that can do what you claim is the sole province of your widget.
Best regards,
David Venhuizen, P.E.Planning and Engineering as if Water and Environmental Values Matter www.venhuizen-ww.com
And McPherson’s observations: (excerpt)
The possible solutions are screened based on meeting criteria from a complete needs assessment. Then the best value options that meet the criteria are placed on the table. Is TRIW adequate to remain on the table? Can any other plans be modified to allow them to remain on the table? Based on the criteria which options and configurations of systems are left???? The rest fall away.
Because the needs assessment was limited and not well knitted together or updated from the TRI W failure, decentralized isn't on the main table.
EIR affords the final comparisons of options and technology/site configurations ...and decentralized must be here as well as Ripley plan. The flaw in the rough screening was setting artificial limits to the "solution paradigm" to centralized only. This allowed an early process failure to develop defensible "best value" project criteria. This prematurely knocked decentralized and Ripley out of the running favor of centralized only and Carollo only.
This can be corrected now and evaluations can be made complete so there is no question for the legitimacy for the process.
Gail
Let me repeat that:
“The flaw in the rough screening was setting artificial limits to the “solution paradigm” to centralized only. This allowed an early process failure to develop defensible “best value” project criteria. This prematurely knocked decentralized and Ripley [My note: also Pio Lomobardo’s decentralized cluster/water-reuse plan?] out of the running in favor of centralized only and Carollo only. This can be corrected now and evaluations can be made complete so there is no question for the legitimacy for the process.”
Meantime . . . .
. . . . This can be corrected now. . . yes, IF the citizens will make their voices heard that onsite will be evaluated by experts in onsite programs and on a level field with the other options, not simply something cursorily reviewed at the last minute as window-dressing to prop up a Process that was off kilter from day one.
Meantime, enough with Mr. Murphy & Mr. Low’s Word War 2.0. It’s simply too silly. The documentation path is clear, the test-case path is clear, the necessity of getting a definition of what “is” is, is clear, necessary data required for a fair evaluation should be clear. All of which needs to go to the county and the RWQCB. Or Mr. Murphy can head to federal court and file whatever he needs to file.
In the meantime, Mother Calhoun sez: “Threatening residents isn’t included in that list of Things To Do, Thank You.”
Have a happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
