Letter from PZLDF
The following is a letter received from the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund, regarding the Los Osos CDOs and all residents within the Prohibition Zone. I hope everyone in Los Osos living within the PZ will take time to read it. There’s some serious mis- and lack of -information going on out there , some serious muddlements occurring at the recent CDO hearings, the goal posts are again being moved around by the RWQCB, (check the wording of the latest post concerning up upcoming Jan 22 panel meeting) which changes the playing field, once again putting the residents in the dark and at a dangerous disadvantage. Caveat, Los Osos. Caveat.
Property Owners Didn't Blink; They Were Blindsided
Alan Martyn, Los Osos, President PZLDF (528-0229)
As members of the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund (PZLDF)— a local volunteer organization—we thank the Bay News and Jack Beardwood for coverage on 12/13 and 12/20 of the Water Board’s prosecution of 45 Los Osos residents. We’d also like to offer some clarification on the difference between the Settlement Agreement (Settlement) and Cease and Desist Orders (CDO’s) the RWQCB is issuing.
First, the 25 or so LO residents who told the RWQCB they would sign an Agreement in lieu of receiving CDO’s may be surprised to know that the Settlement is an enforceable Clean Up and Abatement Order (CAO). A CAO is not much different from a CDO, and in some ways it’s worse.
Under CAO’s and CDO’s the RWQCB can impose fines of up to $5000 per day. However, under a CAO the law requires a mandatory minimum fine of $500 per day (Water Code Section 13350), unless the RWQCB considers special circumstances which it is not obligated to do. Although the Water Board originally included language indicating it would consider special circumstances, the final Settlement posted on its website did not contain the language.
Also, a CAO (the Settlement) allows the RWQCB much more discretion in how it deals with the homeowner and alleged pollution. It allows RWQCB or designated parties to enter a person’s property, to investigate the sources of pollution (or threatened pollution), to correct the violations as it deems fit, to charge the homeowner for all expenses, including administration costs, an to place a lien on the property if necessary.
If the RWQCB finds that property owners’ septic discharges have caused water from a well in the area to exceed minimum safe standards, the Water Board can require homeowners to provide replacement water. Theoretically—if the AB 2701 process fails and enough people in LO sign a Settlement—the RWQCB could build the LO treatment system and place liens on people’s property to cover costs.
Ironically, one of the most onerous aspects of the Settlement is the fact that it is a “settlement:” people supposedly have "agreed" to it (although they might have felt under duress). By agreeing to the Settlement (CAO), residents severely limit their rights to challenge any enforcement even if their home must be vacated in 2011. . For the most part, hearing rights are limited to the amount of the fines and liens, not whether they should be levied.
In other key ways, the CDO and Settlement are identical. Both require septic pumping and inspection every three years and hookup to a community system when it's available. Both require cessation of septic tank discharges by Jan. 2011 if the County does not approve an assessment by July 1, 2008; and both require the property owner to cease discharges within two years if construction of the project stops permanently.
Since both the Settlement and CDO potentially affect the value and use of property, homeowners are obligated to report them in transactions involving their property (e.g., sales and loans).
Because both enforcement measures hinge on County approval of a benefits assessment by July 1, 2008, people who sign a Settlement and people receiving CDO’s face potentially large fines and the possibility of having to vacate their homes, if the AB 2701 process hits the rocks or the RWQCB fails to approve alternative, individual systems for ceasing discharges.
One clear benefit of a CDO, over the Settlement (CAO), is that the CDO requires the RWQCB to provide recipients “…current information on successful and economical water quality control programs…and information and assistance in applying for federal and state funds necessary to comply with the cease and desist order.” (Water Code Section 13301.1). In other words, CDO language requires the RWQCB to support LO in its effort to find an economical solution to its waste water problems.
Any LO resident who agreed to sign a Settlement may have a last chance to reconsider. The RWQCB changed the Settlement at the December hearing, so people have a chance to review and agree to changes before signing an amended settlement. If you haven’t signed the amended agreement, there’s still time to consult an attorney, ask more questions, and change your mind if you desire.
Anyone with questions about the CDO's or impending Water Board actions against LO residents can contact PZLDF at 534-1913 and will be put in touch with volunteers who can help sort out the regulatory maze.
The vast majority of LO residents want a community wastewater system, and they support the AB 2701 process. They are also willing to have their tanks pumped and inspected voluntarily until they can hook up to a community system (requirements in the Settlement and CDO). Of course, individuals don’t have the ability to build a community system. Therefore, PZLDF considers the RWQCB actions to be unreasonable and unnecessary. PZLDF is also concerned that the RWQCB’s actions will threaten the AB 2701 process by putting unreasonable timelines and conditions on the County and LO citizens. To protect the rights of individuals as a group in LO, PZLDF has attempted to negotiate a fair settlement with the RWQCB, and we are in the process of appealing CDO’s to the State Water Board, and considering a court action for the future.
Because the RWQCB has stated that they intend to issue CDO’s or CAO’s to all properties in the Prohibition Zone, we urge property owners in Los Osos to make a generous donation to PZLDF to help those who are facing or will face the actions of the RWQCB. Checks can be made out to: Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund or PZLDF. Your donations will be used for the defense of the group of people who have received or will receive proposed enforcement actions by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Donations can be sent to:
PZLDF
P.O. Box 6095
Los Osos, CA 93412
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Friday, December 29, 2006
Los Osos CSD Lives To Stagger Forward Another Day! Regional Water Quality Control Board Pulls A Bait & Switchy. It’s A Humpty Dumpty Moment! Again!
I had a prior commitment on the evening of Dec 28, but did manage to poke my head in about 9 pm. to hear some of the public comments concerning discussion of dissolution by the CSD. New Board member Joe Sparks noted that the Board was examining all options before it, including dissolution, because they had a duty to ensure the “maximum protection of the homeowner,” which had me muttering under my breath, “Too bad the recalled Board didn’t exercise that “duty” when they voted to gamble with the homeowners’ money by pounding it into the ground before the recall, thereby losing a bundle and precipitating the present mess. "Oh, well.
I can only hope that the County and the CSD will not all collectively lose their marbles and will realize that an “alive” CSD able to deal with its debts and responsibilities will be better than a Dead Duck and so work out a win-win compromise regarding assets and the apparent muddelments to be found in Blakeslee’s bill.
It should also be apparent, that an “alive” CSD with sufficient assets to defend and challenge and so offer the “maximum protection of the homeowner” mentioned by Mr. Sparks from various lawsuits and claims that may be improper or false, is the ONLY protection those homeowners have. Does anyone think the County would give a foodle about, for example, finding out whether a loan was illegally or improperly written in the first place and hence may well be invalid? Or just who DID pull the plug on the Breach of contract SRF lawsuit and . . . exactly when? You know, fun questions like that.
Speaking of Fun.
In their latest posting, The Regional Water Quality Control Board is following in the tradition of Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland’s Through the Looking-Glass: “When I use a word, “Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “It means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
The left-over CDO recipients will be tried and beheaded Jan 22 by a “panel,” instead of the full board, which means their verdicts (Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!) will have to be conveyed up to the full board and voted on . . . later .. . Which makes me wonder if the game now hasn’t changed (again) to “I Know, Let’s Do The Panel Thing As A Way To Drag This Out And Thereby Keep Anyone From Getting Anywhere Near A “Real” Court For As Long As Humanly Possible Because A “Real” Court Might Just Toss This Entire Mess Out On Its Ear Thereby Making Us Look Bad.”
But here’s the real Humpty Dumpty moment. The original CDOs were justified by the responsibility claimed by the RWQCB to protect natural resources and the environment, to prevent “discharge of waste that could affect waters of the state,” and so forth.
Now, on Page 4 of their Notice of Panel Hearing posting, the game has changed utterly. “The Water Board does not have to find that discharges from subsurface disposal systems within the prohibition zone are causing or contributing to conditions of pollution or nuisance in order to issue Cease and Desist orders for discharges of waste that violate the prohibition.”
See? Gone. Zip! Poof! There’s now nothing whatsoever about the waters of the state. You could put in a brand new septic tank and system, run a garden hose of fresh drinking water through it and whatever came out the pipe of this brand new septic tank (fresh drinking water) would render you GUILTY of violating the Prohibition Zone and hence, KaZAM! you’ll get a CDO slapped on your property.
Weirder still, the “Settlement Agreements” already signed still says that if you propose an “alternative method of ceasing all unpermitted discharges,” “If the alternative involves a discharge of waste that COULD AFFECT WATERS OF THE STATE, . . .” you need a report and permit and mitigation & etc.
So, we have an (old, signed) settlement agreement that is based on something affecting the waters of the state, and a NEW! Improved! document that will be used to try and convict the remaining CDO recipients with nary a mention of any waters anywhere. Doesn’t matter if Property X’s discharges are not doing anything whatsoever to the waters of the state. No need for evidence that anybody’s polluting anything anywhere. Nope. Simply change the language and, Poof! Anyone living within the boundries of the prohibition zone is . . . GUILTY! Period. Hang ‘em!
Ah, Humpty Dumpty would have loved it!
I had a prior commitment on the evening of Dec 28, but did manage to poke my head in about 9 pm. to hear some of the public comments concerning discussion of dissolution by the CSD. New Board member Joe Sparks noted that the Board was examining all options before it, including dissolution, because they had a duty to ensure the “maximum protection of the homeowner,” which had me muttering under my breath, “Too bad the recalled Board didn’t exercise that “duty” when they voted to gamble with the homeowners’ money by pounding it into the ground before the recall, thereby losing a bundle and precipitating the present mess. "Oh, well.
I can only hope that the County and the CSD will not all collectively lose their marbles and will realize that an “alive” CSD able to deal with its debts and responsibilities will be better than a Dead Duck and so work out a win-win compromise regarding assets and the apparent muddelments to be found in Blakeslee’s bill.
It should also be apparent, that an “alive” CSD with sufficient assets to defend and challenge and so offer the “maximum protection of the homeowner” mentioned by Mr. Sparks from various lawsuits and claims that may be improper or false, is the ONLY protection those homeowners have. Does anyone think the County would give a foodle about, for example, finding out whether a loan was illegally or improperly written in the first place and hence may well be invalid? Or just who DID pull the plug on the Breach of contract SRF lawsuit and . . . exactly when? You know, fun questions like that.
Speaking of Fun.
In their latest posting, The Regional Water Quality Control Board is following in the tradition of Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland’s Through the Looking-Glass: “When I use a word, “Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “It means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
The left-over CDO recipients will be tried and beheaded Jan 22 by a “panel,” instead of the full board, which means their verdicts (Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!) will have to be conveyed up to the full board and voted on . . . later .. . Which makes me wonder if the game now hasn’t changed (again) to “I Know, Let’s Do The Panel Thing As A Way To Drag This Out And Thereby Keep Anyone From Getting Anywhere Near A “Real” Court For As Long As Humanly Possible Because A “Real” Court Might Just Toss This Entire Mess Out On Its Ear Thereby Making Us Look Bad.”
But here’s the real Humpty Dumpty moment. The original CDOs were justified by the responsibility claimed by the RWQCB to protect natural resources and the environment, to prevent “discharge of waste that could affect waters of the state,” and so forth.
Now, on Page 4 of their Notice of Panel Hearing posting, the game has changed utterly. “The Water Board does not have to find that discharges from subsurface disposal systems within the prohibition zone are causing or contributing to conditions of pollution or nuisance in order to issue Cease and Desist orders for discharges of waste that violate the prohibition.”
See? Gone. Zip! Poof! There’s now nothing whatsoever about the waters of the state. You could put in a brand new septic tank and system, run a garden hose of fresh drinking water through it and whatever came out the pipe of this brand new septic tank (fresh drinking water) would render you GUILTY of violating the Prohibition Zone and hence, KaZAM! you’ll get a CDO slapped on your property.
Weirder still, the “Settlement Agreements” already signed still says that if you propose an “alternative method of ceasing all unpermitted discharges,” “If the alternative involves a discharge of waste that COULD AFFECT WATERS OF THE STATE, . . .” you need a report and permit and mitigation & etc.
So, we have an (old, signed) settlement agreement that is based on something affecting the waters of the state, and a NEW! Improved! document that will be used to try and convict the remaining CDO recipients with nary a mention of any waters anywhere. Doesn’t matter if Property X’s discharges are not doing anything whatsoever to the waters of the state. No need for evidence that anybody’s polluting anything anywhere. Nope. Simply change the language and, Poof! Anyone living within the boundries of the prohibition zone is . . . GUILTY! Period. Hang ‘em!
Ah, Humpty Dumpty would have loved it!
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Quick, Get Me Rewrite! No, Get Me An Editor! No, Get Me Some Dramamine; This Spin Is Making Me Sea Sick!
Despite being busy with Christmas, I hope everyone noticed the absolute dead silence from the Tribune on the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Holy Inquisition & Captain Kangaroo Court Trial Of The Los Osos 45 on Dec 14 &15. Didn’t read a peep about it. Then, got so busy with Christmas that the Tribune’s Dec 24, 06 story on the hearing darned near slipped past my notice.
Of course, it probably slipped past much notice by anyone in Los Osos because it was spun and framed in such as way as to be unworthy of any notice. I mean, consider the headline: “Some Los Osos homes told to end septic use.” “Water quality regulators send cease and desist order to 14 residents.”
Gee, why would anyone, even Los Osos folks, even bother to read further? Sounds like some run-of-the-mill matter affecting a small number of people, no need to anyone in town to pay attention. Turn the page.
Not a peep about how these people have been put through a year of hell, moved goal posts, an Alice In Wonderland forest of changed and constantly changing rules, changed dates, tossed out paperwork, stress that put some of them in the hospital, their lives in total disarray, all totally unnecessary. Nope, not a peep. Just a bland reference that the Board will require the 14 “. . .to hook up to a community wastewater treatment facility within 60 days of availability.”
See? No problems here, no need to inquire further, ask no questions, move along, move along, nothing to see here.
Every time the Tribune does this sort of “blanding” and diminishment of a story, (aka “spin”) I always have to ask myself, Why? Why does the Editor want the residents of Los Osos to think that this hearing only affected 14 people, that everything’s fine, that they don’t need to read further, turn the page. (This is the same paper that puts on the front page a domestic squabble that ended up with one person wounded. But a whole town threatened with a disruptive administrative “trial” that could result in them losing their homes gets blanded and whitewashed and diminished into Snoreville.)
Why?
Meantime, the CSD’s Thursday meeting will consider whether the CSD can commit seppuku. Or just allow the County to kill it off while leaving no fingerprints and claiming no responsibility (Nuh-huh, wasn’t me. It was Miss Scarlet in the Library with a Candlestick). Alas, I have a long-standing, unbreakable commitment to be in another place at that time, so can only try to get there late in hopes that the deed is not already done and thereby miss what may well turn out to be an important meeting, with important issues to be resolved.
The most important of which is this: IF the CSD dies, will that make recalled Board member, Gordon Hensley, happy . . . at last?
Despite being busy with Christmas, I hope everyone noticed the absolute dead silence from the Tribune on the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Holy Inquisition & Captain Kangaroo Court Trial Of The Los Osos 45 on Dec 14 &15. Didn’t read a peep about it. Then, got so busy with Christmas that the Tribune’s Dec 24, 06 story on the hearing darned near slipped past my notice.
Of course, it probably slipped past much notice by anyone in Los Osos because it was spun and framed in such as way as to be unworthy of any notice. I mean, consider the headline: “Some Los Osos homes told to end septic use.” “Water quality regulators send cease and desist order to 14 residents.”
Gee, why would anyone, even Los Osos folks, even bother to read further? Sounds like some run-of-the-mill matter affecting a small number of people, no need to anyone in town to pay attention. Turn the page.
Not a peep about how these people have been put through a year of hell, moved goal posts, an Alice In Wonderland forest of changed and constantly changing rules, changed dates, tossed out paperwork, stress that put some of them in the hospital, their lives in total disarray, all totally unnecessary. Nope, not a peep. Just a bland reference that the Board will require the 14 “. . .to hook up to a community wastewater treatment facility within 60 days of availability.”
See? No problems here, no need to inquire further, ask no questions, move along, move along, nothing to see here.
Every time the Tribune does this sort of “blanding” and diminishment of a story, (aka “spin”) I always have to ask myself, Why? Why does the Editor want the residents of Los Osos to think that this hearing only affected 14 people, that everything’s fine, that they don’t need to read further, turn the page. (This is the same paper that puts on the front page a domestic squabble that ended up with one person wounded. But a whole town threatened with a disruptive administrative “trial” that could result in them losing their homes gets blanded and whitewashed and diminished into Snoreville.)
Why?
Meantime, the CSD’s Thursday meeting will consider whether the CSD can commit seppuku. Or just allow the County to kill it off while leaving no fingerprints and claiming no responsibility (Nuh-huh, wasn’t me. It was Miss Scarlet in the Library with a Candlestick). Alas, I have a long-standing, unbreakable commitment to be in another place at that time, so can only try to get there late in hopes that the deed is not already done and thereby miss what may well turn out to be an important meeting, with important issues to be resolved.
The most important of which is this: IF the CSD dies, will that make recalled Board member, Gordon Hensley, happy . . . at last?
Sunday, December 24, 2006
. . . While Visions of Sugarplums Danced In Their Heads . . .
While 4,500 clueless people in Los Osos – those in the gun sights of the RWQCB but oblivious of same – go about their happy Christmas preparation, below is some correspondence from one The Los Osos 45 to Michael Thomas, RWQCB. The RWQCB’s foregone conclusion, kangaroo court hearings may or may not be on January 22 (there have been so many continuances, scuttled plans, moved goal posts, changed rules, violated due process, citizens jerked around for a whole year, who can say what this Board or staff will dream up next?), so this is how the Moylans will be spending THEIR Christmas Vacation.
If you’re one of the 4,5000 clueless, you might want to read this correspondence and think especially carefully about Bev’s final Dec 20, 11:01 pm. email, paragraph two, three and four. Then you might want to hoik yourself down to Coast Savings next to the Post Office and donate funds to the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund, a small group of CDO recipients who are working hard to protect your due process rights (you’re next, trust me on this one,) and continue to work for a win/win alternative settlement, since the settlement agreement presented to the Board at the Dec 14 hearing, has some really dangerous legal traps imbedded in it, traps I would bet the farm the signers of same were totally unaware of, especially since some of those promising to sign hadn’t even read a final version of same. Talk about “duress,” this agreeing to blind sign a “contract?” Not even sleazy used car salesmen are allowed to get away with that under California law.
I’ve re-stacked these for chronology. Posted with permission from Bev DeWitt-Moylan
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 4:35 PM
Subject: Los Osos CDO hearing
Mr. Moylan and Mrs. Dewitt-Moylan:
The Water Board continued your hearing to January 22 at 1:00. The Water Board also continued the hearings for Mr. and Mrs. Mortara (and two others) to the same date. We will send you a hearing notice for the January 22 hearing, including a list of the evidence submitted into the record at the December 14 and 15 hearings, as soon as possible.
Thank you
Michael Thomas
12/20/2006 6:50 AM >>>
Mr. Thomas,
Thank you for your message regarding the continuance of our hearing to January 22 at 1 PM and your promise to send by post a notice of the hearing and the submitted evidence list.
This hearing is scheduled, of course, in the middle of my teaching day when I would normally be involved in a session in Atascadero with a multihandicapped blind young woman and her parent. Just for your information her handicaps involve blindness, severe developmental delay, autism, and medical fragility. Following that missed session I will also be unavailable for a Braille instruction session with a blind third-grade student in Creston, and his teacher will receive no consultation that day.
As you mentioned to me in a recent message, government agency business supercedes any personal business of any citizen. As you may know, my service to the blind and visually impaired students of this county is governed by legally binding documents, called Individualized Education Plans. These documents are based on assessment and research. Negotiated and agreed upon at IEP meetings, signed by teachers, parents, school administrators, any advocates present, and any state agency representatives present, as well as by the student if able, the IEP includes the frequency and duration of my service to each student. The services provided in this document can hardly be termed personal business. My students are entitled by law under IDEA to this individualized educational plan. Parents and students of legal age are entitled to due process if any part of the agreement or its execution is in dispute.
Because of the seriousness of this legally binding document and because no one with my credentials is available to substitute for me in this county, I have accrued 184 sick leave days over the past 25 years with the County Office of Education. It is my practice to serve my students. I am bound to serve my students. Attendance at professional development sessions, such as the class in trauma in children which I attended in Carlsbad last week has the function of improving my level of service to my students and their families and to school personnel. Two of the three days of this intensive class occurred on the weekend.
At least four teachers of students with special needs are among the first round of citizens in receipt of CDO documents, and at least three of us are bound in our service by Individualized Education Plans. As a state agent and public servant, you respect the authority of regulations that govern how you conduct the business of your agency. As a San Luis Obispo County Office of Education employee and public servant I respect the authority of the regulations that govern the education of children.
Though it probably goes without saying, I hope I have conveyed through these comments the seriousness of the RWQCB's overriding the requirements of my public position, requiring me to leave my students in the middle of my teaching day yet again, in order to comply with the requirements of your agency.
Thank you,
Beverley De Witt-Moylan
Wednesday, December 20, 2006 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: Los Osos CDO hearing
Mrs. Dewitt-MoylanIt is difficult, if not impossible, to schedule hearings at a time that is convenient to all participants. Would it be better to have your hearing later in the day on January 22?
Michael Thomas
Wednesday, December 20, 2006 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Los Osos CDO hearing
Mr. Thomas,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your question regarding my ability to attend the CDO hearing at a later time on January 22, 2007. As an itinerant consulting teacher I fully appreciate your comment regarding the difficulty of scheduling hearing dates and times acceptable to all participants. My professional position as a Vision Specialist requires that I develop a personal schedule that accommodates the schedules of many other specialists involved with my students, a schedule that also coincides with each school's schedule. Each year, and in some cases more than once in the school year, through cooperation and compromise specialists are able to formulate a matrix that meets our need to schedule our own individual sessions while best serving the goals and objectives of each student. We are all well aware that the goals and objectives drive the process, and so we are able to come to agreement to facilitate the outcome we all desire, which is the program that best benefits the child.
I do not need to tell you that had the water board followed the procedure of notifying citizens first of perceived violations, the subsequent complicated repeated scheduling and rescheduling of hearings would not have been necessary. The interference in the individual lives and schedules of dozens of extremely busy homeowners and their families would not have been necessary. The difficulty of your accommodating a variety of schedules could have been avoided altogether.
Imagine what could have happened if a spirit of professional cooperation and compromise had prevailed. Your board, which has no money for a mediator or for vidoetaping the hearings, would not have had to spend hundreds of staff hours and thousands upon thousands of taxpayer funds conducting the CDO hearing process to which you are committed and in which you have been engaged for almost a year but have yet to complete the processing of just 45 of the almost 5000 properties. Instead of a mere 45 properties, many more homes would have already pumped, inspected, and repaired their septic systems, as your board desires, had they been notified a year ago of a violation and given an opportunity to mitigate through the same process your board ordered in the CDO. But instead, your executive officer determined to follow the much more rigid and difficult CDO process, bringing with it the potential of years of litigation with no mitigation in a process easily conceived whose outcome now is uncertain.
If the water board has difficulty scheduling hearings to accommodate all those involved in this so-far abortive process of CDO enforcement, if the board is in financial difficulty and cannot pay for services like a mediator, then the board might consider achieving compliance by an avenue other than the CDO process, which has proven so much more expensive in taxpayer funds, personal funds, staff time, and personal time for those in receipt of CDO documents.
With regard to my schedule on Monday, January 22, my duty day extends through 4:30 pm. I will complete a Braille session with a third grade student in Creston at 3pm. Because I drive a SLOCOE vehicle, it is necessary for me to return it to the office on Highway One before I would be able to drive across town to the water board site. The drive from Creston to the County Office of Education takes 45 minutes. I would be able to leave the office between 3:50 and 4 pm depending on traffic, and could probably be at the RWQCB site before or by 4:30 pm, depending on traffic.
Thank you,
Beverley De Witt-Moylan
While 4,500 clueless people in Los Osos – those in the gun sights of the RWQCB but oblivious of same – go about their happy Christmas preparation, below is some correspondence from one The Los Osos 45 to Michael Thomas, RWQCB. The RWQCB’s foregone conclusion, kangaroo court hearings may or may not be on January 22 (there have been so many continuances, scuttled plans, moved goal posts, changed rules, violated due process, citizens jerked around for a whole year, who can say what this Board or staff will dream up next?), so this is how the Moylans will be spending THEIR Christmas Vacation.
If you’re one of the 4,5000 clueless, you might want to read this correspondence and think especially carefully about Bev’s final Dec 20, 11:01 pm. email, paragraph two, three and four. Then you might want to hoik yourself down to Coast Savings next to the Post Office and donate funds to the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund, a small group of CDO recipients who are working hard to protect your due process rights (you’re next, trust me on this one,) and continue to work for a win/win alternative settlement, since the settlement agreement presented to the Board at the Dec 14 hearing, has some really dangerous legal traps imbedded in it, traps I would bet the farm the signers of same were totally unaware of, especially since some of those promising to sign hadn’t even read a final version of same. Talk about “duress,” this agreeing to blind sign a “contract?” Not even sleazy used car salesmen are allowed to get away with that under California law.
I’ve re-stacked these for chronology. Posted with permission from Bev DeWitt-Moylan
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 4:35 PM
Subject: Los Osos CDO hearing
Mr. Moylan and Mrs. Dewitt-Moylan:
The Water Board continued your hearing to January 22 at 1:00. The Water Board also continued the hearings for Mr. and Mrs. Mortara (and two others) to the same date. We will send you a hearing notice for the January 22 hearing, including a list of the evidence submitted into the record at the December 14 and 15 hearings, as soon as possible.
Thank you
Michael Thomas
12/20/2006 6:50 AM >>>
Mr. Thomas,
Thank you for your message regarding the continuance of our hearing to January 22 at 1 PM and your promise to send by post a notice of the hearing and the submitted evidence list.
This hearing is scheduled, of course, in the middle of my teaching day when I would normally be involved in a session in Atascadero with a multihandicapped blind young woman and her parent. Just for your information her handicaps involve blindness, severe developmental delay, autism, and medical fragility. Following that missed session I will also be unavailable for a Braille instruction session with a blind third-grade student in Creston, and his teacher will receive no consultation that day.
As you mentioned to me in a recent message, government agency business supercedes any personal business of any citizen. As you may know, my service to the blind and visually impaired students of this county is governed by legally binding documents, called Individualized Education Plans. These documents are based on assessment and research. Negotiated and agreed upon at IEP meetings, signed by teachers, parents, school administrators, any advocates present, and any state agency representatives present, as well as by the student if able, the IEP includes the frequency and duration of my service to each student. The services provided in this document can hardly be termed personal business. My students are entitled by law under IDEA to this individualized educational plan. Parents and students of legal age are entitled to due process if any part of the agreement or its execution is in dispute.
Because of the seriousness of this legally binding document and because no one with my credentials is available to substitute for me in this county, I have accrued 184 sick leave days over the past 25 years with the County Office of Education. It is my practice to serve my students. I am bound to serve my students. Attendance at professional development sessions, such as the class in trauma in children which I attended in Carlsbad last week has the function of improving my level of service to my students and their families and to school personnel. Two of the three days of this intensive class occurred on the weekend.
At least four teachers of students with special needs are among the first round of citizens in receipt of CDO documents, and at least three of us are bound in our service by Individualized Education Plans. As a state agent and public servant, you respect the authority of regulations that govern how you conduct the business of your agency. As a San Luis Obispo County Office of Education employee and public servant I respect the authority of the regulations that govern the education of children.
Though it probably goes without saying, I hope I have conveyed through these comments the seriousness of the RWQCB's overriding the requirements of my public position, requiring me to leave my students in the middle of my teaching day yet again, in order to comply with the requirements of your agency.
Thank you,
Beverley De Witt-Moylan
Wednesday, December 20, 2006 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: Los Osos CDO hearing
Mrs. Dewitt-MoylanIt is difficult, if not impossible, to schedule hearings at a time that is convenient to all participants. Would it be better to have your hearing later in the day on January 22?
Michael Thomas
Wednesday, December 20, 2006 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Los Osos CDO hearing
Mr. Thomas,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your question regarding my ability to attend the CDO hearing at a later time on January 22, 2007. As an itinerant consulting teacher I fully appreciate your comment regarding the difficulty of scheduling hearing dates and times acceptable to all participants. My professional position as a Vision Specialist requires that I develop a personal schedule that accommodates the schedules of many other specialists involved with my students, a schedule that also coincides with each school's schedule. Each year, and in some cases more than once in the school year, through cooperation and compromise specialists are able to formulate a matrix that meets our need to schedule our own individual sessions while best serving the goals and objectives of each student. We are all well aware that the goals and objectives drive the process, and so we are able to come to agreement to facilitate the outcome we all desire, which is the program that best benefits the child.
I do not need to tell you that had the water board followed the procedure of notifying citizens first of perceived violations, the subsequent complicated repeated scheduling and rescheduling of hearings would not have been necessary. The interference in the individual lives and schedules of dozens of extremely busy homeowners and their families would not have been necessary. The difficulty of your accommodating a variety of schedules could have been avoided altogether.
Imagine what could have happened if a spirit of professional cooperation and compromise had prevailed. Your board, which has no money for a mediator or for vidoetaping the hearings, would not have had to spend hundreds of staff hours and thousands upon thousands of taxpayer funds conducting the CDO hearing process to which you are committed and in which you have been engaged for almost a year but have yet to complete the processing of just 45 of the almost 5000 properties. Instead of a mere 45 properties, many more homes would have already pumped, inspected, and repaired their septic systems, as your board desires, had they been notified a year ago of a violation and given an opportunity to mitigate through the same process your board ordered in the CDO. But instead, your executive officer determined to follow the much more rigid and difficult CDO process, bringing with it the potential of years of litigation with no mitigation in a process easily conceived whose outcome now is uncertain.
If the water board has difficulty scheduling hearings to accommodate all those involved in this so-far abortive process of CDO enforcement, if the board is in financial difficulty and cannot pay for services like a mediator, then the board might consider achieving compliance by an avenue other than the CDO process, which has proven so much more expensive in taxpayer funds, personal funds, staff time, and personal time for those in receipt of CDO documents.
With regard to my schedule on Monday, January 22, my duty day extends through 4:30 pm. I will complete a Braille session with a third grade student in Creston at 3pm. Because I drive a SLOCOE vehicle, it is necessary for me to return it to the office on Highway One before I would be able to drive across town to the water board site. The drive from Creston to the County Office of Education takes 45 minutes. I would be able to leave the office between 3:50 and 4 pm depending on traffic, and could probably be at the RWQCB site before or by 4:30 pm, depending on traffic.
Thank you,
Beverley De Witt-Moylan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
