“Put the Spin Machine down, Mr. Drake, and step away from the computer and nobody will get hurt. O.K. Sure, it could be considered ‘material misrepresentation or insurance fraud.’ Let’s just not talk about it any more, O.K?” Part Duh.
So, first the Los Osos CSD votes to pay for a bond at a special hurry-hurry 8 a.m. meeting to cover the cost of returning the graded Tri-W site to a condition of safety and to stop any erosion problems, should the recall succeed and the digging and grading is stopped, and CSD Board Member, Tacker, gets on the phone and calls Insco/Dico, the company that was going to issue the bond, and asks: “Did you know that property in question is ESHA, has some lawsuits on it, a recall hurtling down the pike, & etc?” And Insco/Dico says, WHAAAAA. . .???? and soon there follows the skitter-skatter of little Insco/Dico feet galloping down Glendale Blvd. saying, “Nuh-huh we changed our minds, we’re outta here hasta la vista we must away to France!” (See my blog post of Sept 13)
So then the district shops around and finds some other company to buy the bond from, this time Safeco, and Board Member Tacker calls them and they say, “Uh, oh, wait, something’s not kosher here, we’ll get back to you click!” And then there’s some thrashing around in the Los Osos bushes and ka-poof! next thing you know a bond is secured BUT, magically, this time Monterey Mechanical is listed as a co-principal with the CSD and Tacker tells the Bay News that she has to conclude that this was done so the bond could be secured for less than $5,000 because anything over $5,000 would require a public meeting with the full board and that would mean that the &%#@#^*#! public would show up and ask a whole bunch of #@%#@*! questions.
Then emails start flying accusing Tacker of “contractual interference,” with our very own Public Information Officer, Mr. “No Spin” Michael Drake saying of Tacker, “The issue we’re looking into is her intervention following board approval. She is kind of countermanding and superceding the board’s wishes.”
“ . . . kind of countermanding?” Asking if a bonding company knew the property they were supposed to be insuring for X amount was property that was actually a big mess and should have been insured for Y amount is “kind of countermanding?” Well, no matter. Mr. Drake went on to say, “It may not be illegal, but it’s unethical. The matter is being looked into for legal ramifications and liability.”
Then Michael Wright, owner of the Michael Wright Insurance Agency, chimes in by observing that “ . . . the district’s failure to discuss all the facts surround the property could be construed as material misrepresentation or insurance fraud.”
Insurance fraud? Or maybe we should say, kind of insurance fraud? Or kind of material misrepesentation?
Which does raise a critical issue: If you buy fire insurance and state on the form that you live in a brick house twenty-five feet from a fire hydrant and don’t smoke, and you sign that application and the company issues you a fire policy and your house burns down and it turns out you live in a straw house five miles from the nearest hydrant, smoke like a chimney AND you store gasoline in your basement and the insurance company says, “Whoa, we’re outta here, we’re not gonna make good on this policy since you kind of lied about really important facts bye-bye we’re off to France,” then there you are, stuck with having to pay out of pocket for all the damage. Which is exactly the pickle the good citizens of Los Osos could have ended up in, had Tacker not made that “unethical” phone call.
So, Bay News reporter, Jack Beardwood, writes this all up in the Sept 21 edition and closes with this: “Attempts to cast more light on the matter were declined by Drake, who refused to discuss the second bond arrangement, saying they didn’t want to comment because of possible legal ramifications caused by Tacker’s interference. ‘We don’t want a whole lot out on this,’ he said."
Gosh, I’ll say not. I wouldn’t want a whole lot out on this either. It might start people asking questions.
Mum's the word, Mike! Now, let’s start the Spin Machine back up. And can we have bubbles and accordion music with it this time?
UPDATE (9/23): For more on the wonderful "bait & switch" scheme -- the one that made sure all those little tots that are overrunning Los Osos got a multi-million dollar Tot Lot next to their sewer treatment plant in the middle of their town (paid for by the prohibition zone folks only but enjoyed by tots all over town) see Ron Crawford's new post at: www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com. Ah, Trust the Truth! Read and learn! Then it's time for milk and cookies and a little nappy-poo.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
So what you are saying is you have no new facts here but that you want to repeat your accusation that the district has done something wrong.
Perhaps if you were able to comment on Michael Wright and why his opinon should matter to us. Did he read the documents in question? Is he someone who works on this sort of insurance with regularity?
Bwa-hahahah. You need to ask yourself WHY Insco Dico walked away from that Bond. I refer you to the paragraph on page 23 of the Bay News story: "An E-mail by Buel states that Cassie Berrisford of Inso-Dico, told him that she had received information regarding pending litigation, the recall vote and the ballot measure, which she confirmed by visiting the district's Web site and that resulted in her chaning her mind about providing the bond."
On the same page, Mr. Wright, an insurance guy, notes ". . .you have to provide accurate information for the bonding company to evealuate the risk, whether they are going to write it or not."
Also on the same page, Mr. Buel can spend up to $5,000 without Board approval. If, for example, Insco-Dico had been given "accurate information" up front (i.e. ESHA land, recall, lawsuits, etc) would their bond bid have come in at $7,560.00 instead of the $4,501.20 they quoted? That amount would have been over the amount Bruce could spend without any public meetings, with all those ^%$^@# people showing up to ask questions.
Bruce stated at the 8 a.m. meeting he thought he didn't need Board approval, but it was the County that insisted. At that point, he was stuck with the bids in hand and they, in turn, were all based on whatever information Bruce had already supplied the companies.
Now, again, I ask you, WHY did Insco/Dico walk away from that bond AFTER Tacker's call and after verifying on the CSD's website the various issues? If Bruce had given Insco-Dico "accurate information" up front, Ms. Berrisform wouldn't have had to look anything up on the any website.
Are you connecting the dots yet?
Ann,
Ms. Spinmeister. You need a dot connecting lesson. It is not Tacker's authority to administer for the CSD. If she has evidence of insurance fraud, she should take it the DA, not a bond company. A bond company is protected, because if there was fraud it would void the contract.
They might have run from the bond simply because they don't want to deal with an entity where board members are going around outside their authority.
Could it be that she was just trying to prevent more work on the site, and doing it inappropriately? And maybe not. Leave the dots to those that know how to connect them - like kids.
You miss the point, Publicworks. IF Insco-Dico had had full knowledge of what was being bonded, there would have been no need for Ms. Berrisford of Insco-Dico to visit the CSD's website to confirm anything. When Tacker called to ask about ESHA & etc, Ms. Berrisford would have replied, "Yep, we were apprised of all the problems with that bond and based our bid price accordingly, thanks for checking."
Instead, they scampered out the door. Why?
As for Tacker, at the 8.a.m. meeting, she asked at the time, Was that bond payout of $225,000 ENOUGH? I could only presume that for some reason she clearly thought that with a site that fraught with problems, a quater of a mill might be too low. Did she double check with Insco-Dico to make sure that should the recall succeed the community wouldn't be soaked for the restoration amount when Insco-Dico THEN discovered that they hadn't been given full disclosure?
More dots. Interesting dots. Dots even a kid could follow.
Ann,
I believe you are missing one key point. What is somewhat frustrating for me is that I've made the point a few times here and that you youself unintentionally made when cited an article from a Bay News story.
Buel's comment (in the Bay News) says that the information was provided to Insco-Dico and that once they read it they changed their minds. As to your comment by Michael Wright ... who says that Buel did not provide accurate information? I guess Michael Wright is suggesting Buel wasn't forthcomming. How would Wright know this? You've offered us nothing other than your suspicion based on your assumptions that Buel is a liar.
Face it, the insurance company is a firm run by adults who should be able to take adult risks. They are an insurance company for goodness sake. As long as they are not provided innacurate information they should be able to assess the risks involved before determining the bond price. Perhaps you should concentrate on finding evidence that Buel did not provide accurate information rather than assuming it.
If Julie had thought that $225M was too low to accomplish the job it doesn't necessarily follow that she should call the bonding company to ask them whether $225M was enough. In fact, I would suggest that if you call a CPA (or equivalent) about environmental problems you are calling the wrong person. It seems pretty clear to me that her call wasn't to ask a question but to try to get them to back out.
Publicworks has it right. You say that the dots line up and that Bruce must have been lying. We've offered several reasons why this firm might have backed out for other reasons yet you continue to insist on your theory as the only possibility. You claim in your most recent reply that this firm hadn't been given full disclosure. I would suggest that they only looked carefully at the packet of info sent over after Julie alerted them to the fact that there is something unusual about the politics of Los Osos. It seems like it is at least as likely that Julie was doing something unethical as it seems that Bruce was doing.
You may be right, but I would continue to argue that if the firm was willing to provide a payout of $225k to the LOCSD for a $5k (or even a $7k) fee they are clearly not paying any attention to local politics. It is quite easy for me to believe that such a company would also not read the file (that Bruce sent over) very carefully.
I live by the motto that it is better to assume ignorance than malice. I am unwilling to believe Bruce is a lying sack of weasel dung as you seem to believe until evidence shows he tried to pull a fast one on the insurance company. Just because you believe it, Ann, doesn't make it a fact.
Dear Inlet: Bruce as a "lying sack of weasel dung. . " Onley, Moley, Inlet. Those are your words, not mine. As for Insco-Dico somehow finding out AFTER they had written up the bid contract ?? No, that 8.a.m. meeting was to get Board authorization to approve an exact bid contract for an exact amount, NOT to enter into negotiations or entertain bids or start the process of getting estimates or anything like that. The bids from various companies were already in hand and Insco-Dico was selected as the best one. Further, you do not ask the key question: When Tacker called that morning, after the Board voted to accept the exact bid for that bond, and asked if Insco-Dico knew about ESHA etc. why didn't they say, "Yep, we know all about everything, it was all in the original bid packet and we based our fee on the risks." Instead, they scampered out the door. Why?
Why?
Two possibilities. One is the weasel dung theory.
Might I humbly and patiently suggest that Insco-Dico backed out of the agreement they had earlier made because they were spooked by Julie's phonecall and decided to finally read the infor that had been provided earlier. The very fact that they thought there was less than a 2% chance that of a recall going through is evidence that they were negligent.
Again, two theories that make sense. You continue to insist on your theory as the only one that makes sense.
I just don't get it. Am I really really unclear or are you just unwilling to admit that there is more than one reasonable interpretation of the facts as you present them?
Sorry, but I'm stuck with Insco-Dico's price for the bond. It had to be based on the liability which had to be based on accurate information. Had they been given accurate information up front, Tacker's phone call would have resulted in zero action on their part.
I disagree for the reasons I and publicworks have pointed out.
Two valid explanations ... one is right but you've presented no solid evidence that justifies your conclusion. For you to continue to argue the point without a shred of additonal evidence suggests you are not so much concerned with the truth but you do want to sling mud.
Asking WHY Insco-Dico scampered out the door after receiving a phone call from Tacker asking IF they knew the property they were bonding was ESHA, was facing a recall and had lawsuits pending is . . . slinging mud? Asking WHY Insco-Dico didn't simply say, "Yep, we know all about that and we priced the bond accordingly, thank you for checking," is . . . slinging mud?
That's really interesting.
You didn't just ask why ... you claimed it was because they hadn't been given the proper information. If you are going to say that you didn't make this claim in your posting and followups you have a career in law or politics ahead of you.
Post a Comment