Mother Calhoun Explains It All While Mike “No Spin” Drake, Los Osos’ Former Public Information Officer Heads Out The Door or To His Attorney’s Office.
Last night the new CSD board voted 5 – 0 to retain General Manager Bruce Buel, but put him on administrative leave until a new team of management specialists arrive. This Rent–A-Management Team is one of those consultant organizations that apparently specializes in “disaster relief.” They arrive at the scene of a civic train wreck and sort things out, get the bodies buried, the fires put out, and hold the fort until the shocked citizens can take over the reins, then they’re off for safer places than Los Osos, say, like Faluja.
Buel will be available to the new team and Board for brain-picking as he knows where the bodies are buried. So his extensive knowledge of the train-wrecked Hideous Los Osos Sewer project left behind by so many of the Buel-recommended Board actions of the Recalled Three will need to be scrutinized and transferred from his brain to the Rent-A-Management Team. As Buel’s contract runs out in ’07, that information transfer will probably work out perfectly for that time frame. After which, Bruce will be free to boogie off to safer places than Los Osos, say, like, Baghdad.
I suspect that closed session vote was a squeaker, but at least Buel kept his job. Not so lucky was our new Public Information Officer, Mike Drake. His contract was terminated. In a recent Tribune report, he threatened legal action if the terms of his contract were abridged, so it’s not known as of this writing whether his contract had been written with a dead-man switch in it –a clause that stated that he was only hired to be the PIO for the duration of the sewer construction project – post street closings, traffic alerts, explain construction delays or problems, & etc. -- and if the sewer project is now in stand-down mode, there’s no PI for the PIO to hand out, so, it’s buh-bye.
I suspect the closed session concerning Mike’s contract wasn’t a squeaker. It was more likely a slam dunk because poor Mike had made some fatal errors going into this job. For him, the learning curve pointed down, not up.
First of all, I think he mistook many Los Ososians for fools, for easy marks just ripe to be sold cheap soap. It’s an easy mistake. We bearish folk often shamble around in Los Osos’ version of dress casual – a cross between an unmade bed and wash-the-car duds. Worse yet, anyone listening in to our wonderfully wacky “public comments” at our local government meetings should be forgiven for thinking we’re a bunch of folks just ripe for the easy con by Florida swamp land salesmen or a PR hotshot from Ventura. But that appearance is, in reality, a deadly disguise that hides an often ferocious intelligence with highly sensitive B.S. detectors built in. And once Los Ososians start casting sly sideways glances at each other and their eyeballs start rolling at some particularly egregious bit of newbie tomfoolery, look out.
Second, Mike publicly declared, right out of the box, he would never “spin.” Ooooo, bad, bad. An awful lot of Los Ososians understand that you do not put the word “public relations” and “spin” in the same sentence. You don’t even put them in the same room together. They are oxymorons. You will get one or the other, never both. And if you hire a “media guy,” you’re gonna get media guy spin. It’s what media guys do.
Third, Mike often either didn’t check his facts or believed the facts he was given, (why should he have doubted information given to him by either Board members or the highest level of “staff?”) and so he ended up often putting out Public DisInformation or partial information (“spin”) or no information at all, which infuriated a whole lot of people. In short, he ended up stuck in an untenable position.
Finally, and most fatal of all, Mike allowed himself to get caught up in the middle of a dogfight because he forgot he didn’t own a dog.
At the end of the evening, the new CSD voted to abide by the provisions of the measure B initiative and invoked Section 15 clause of the contracts to stop work for now. This stand down will stop the massive daily bleed-out of money that was set into motion by the previous Board members who heedlessly put petal to the metal on this train and at full speed set it off the cliff, imprudently and arrogantly gambling that the recall would fail and all would be well.
They lost that bet, but unfortunately for the taxpayers, they were gambling with your money. So, now you’ll pay big time to clean up a mess that didn’t have to happen in the first place.
Too bad Mr. Mike wasn’t given one last Public Information duty: Explain THAT to Los Osos --without “spin.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Yes, Drake was a bit of a doofus.
Buel has some problems, but seems to know pretty well how to deal with the various regulatory agencies. I certainly hope that if the new board cans him and hires someone new, they get someone who is a professional, not a hopeful dreamer who simply refuses to admit that the previous board had a workable and reasonable plan, no matter how expensive and in-town it was.
Along those lines, what if this new crisis management group finds that, even if there were mistakes by the past board, the realistic alternative locations for the sewer all include a likely increase in the price tag? What would our new board do then?
I have a dream. My dream is that the new board does something the past board didn't do. My dream is that the new board takes the next 3 months to get a realistic estimate of the costs of an out-of-town plant (including such factors as inflation and possible environmental issues) and then takes a poll of citizens to determine what we think on the issue.
As I've suggested in the past, I don't think that a majority necessarily would want to move the plant if it would be more expensive to do so. In fact, I think that if the cost per month for moving the sewer out of town was an additional $50/month, less than 10% would prefer the new location.
Simply put, if the new board takes actions to scrap the current construction without first putting some thought into the issue and allowing us to comment, they are no better than the last group.
Lastly, I hope that the RWQCB doesn't impose fines on the CSD for at least 100 days (so the CSD can put together an alternatate plan) plus whatever time it takes their staff to comment. Furthermore, if their commments are negative, I hope that the stopping of the construction can be reversed quickly so that we aren't screwed over by the new board just because they didn't like the way the last board screwed us over.
All the best to you and yours from beautiful Los Osos....
From your lips to God's ears. If I'm not mistaken, the sewer initiative requires that any sewer plan put forth by the Board MUST be voted on by the voters.
A side by side comparison of the present plan versus an out of town system was what the Coastal Commission asked for (and never got and never asked why they didn't get it) Had that been done, at that point, the old CSD board could have gone to the community for, if nothing else, an "advisory vote." They were asked repeatedly to do just such a thing, and refused. Sure it'd cost $ to run such a vote, but compared to what this train wreck is costing us??) Then the community could have chosen and we wouldn't be in this mess. As it was, there were just two or so tantilizing sentences in the staff report during the de novo hearing and that was the one that listed one million less or five or six million more. (no guestimates of O&M costs, which are really going to be critical And that was projected on simply oving the same sewer plant, not another system altogether, so who knows what that cost reduction would be (i.e. a traditional sewer plant vs. enclosed, negative-air, etc.)
Poor mike. I wonder if he knows what hit him.
Well, I hope you'll keep coming to board meetings and speaking up and pop in on wastewater committee meetings. And we'll see what the new management eacm comes up with.
Buel's brain will need to be picked. Though the board followed many of his reccommendations which resulted in this train wreck, it's ultimately the Board that must bear responsibility. Like old Ed Denton, former Superintendent of SlO Coastal, who had his board majority locked tight and heading for disaster, nonetheless, those school board members who tied themselves to the hurtling train, despite warnings, were still ultimately responsible for the SLO Coastal wreck. Same here. Unless anyone can show that Buel witheld pertinent information or knowlingly lied about critical facts, then the three recalled board members have to accept responsibility for what's happened. There were so many ways out of this mess.Hubris, arrogance, ego? Whatever it was, the community will pay big time for their human failures.
Perhaps I misunderstand Measure B. (Perhaps no one understands Measure B including even the lawyer that wrote the text.)
Measure B doesn't say that the public will necessarily be given the choice between all reasonable options. Measure B section 2.08.04 subsection a indicates that the TriW site is specifically disallowed due to it's proximity to the library and park.
As has been argued before, Measure B passed because supporters advertised it as "giving the residents a chance to vote" but they didn't advertise the fact that residents would not be given all available options, just those which Al Barrow liked. Clasic bait-n-switch. Much like any political campaign, voters were told one thing but the measure voters approved was another.
Furthermore, the district is the group that provides all the options. Presumably any site considered as an alternative during the CEQA and NEPA review would be on the list of options, but the "not near the library or schools" clause may very well prevent all but the Andre site. In practical terms, all large plots of available land in town are either near schools or parks (TriW, SeaPines driving Range, Pismo and SouthBay). This measure doesn't give people a right to vote, it takes from people the right to vote for a cheaper plant if the cheaper location would happen to be in town.
Considering the only sites appear to be the "other Andre" site and ones even further away, it seems like we'll be paying every month to pump water back and forth.
Considering Al Barrow was the guy who was on the "damn that plan is too expensive" bandwagon first, this measure from him is more than a bit odd. Why would he want the cheapest plan off the table? Probably because he too was more interested in making life difficult for the previous CSD majority than in the real issues here.
Odd,
Oh man, why whould anyone take Barrow's advice. Do you really think he cares if a sewer ever gets built - if you do, I have news for you. Measure B was anti-sewer, for precisely the reasons you state. It basically makes every potential site challengeable - hint, hint, which is why he started it.
Certainly tells you something about LO when 3000+ vote for someone's iniative, but only a fraction vote for the man.
Let's see, the district just voted to assume about $10Million in debt on Saturday, asked the state to fine it into oblivion, and most of the people are happy about it??!!!
I wonder how many recall people have sobered up since the election, and are regretting one to many drinks!!
I've got a set of questions.
If the the state decides to fine Los Osos for not making progress ... which of the recall supporters who told us "those are only threats, they won't really do it" will step forward and say "I was wrong"? Which of those very same campaigners will go door to door and apologize for giving misleading information out to various voters?
If the new board, in an attempt to follow Measure B, cancels (rather than just temporarily stops) construction at the TriW site, where will they get money to design and build a new system? Last time we all voted to increase our taxes to provide money to the CSD for this purpose. Will the new board ask us for an additional $20/month, half to pay off the current contractors and half to pay for a new plant site and design work?
The new board ran on a platform of lowering costs by (in part) redesigning the collection system. Will they cancel the current collection system work, pay off the current contractors and redesign the system in a way that the RWQCB has already indicated they don't approve of? If so, how will this save us money? If not, why did they tell us they would?
If the new board comes back with a design that will cost us an estimated $105/month on top of the $20/month they already asked us for will citizens immediately be happy because the costs have been lowered? Probably. Fast forward four years. If the costs are estimated to be $200/month (due to delays, RWQCB requirements, cost overruns and inflation) on top of the $20 we've been asked to pay, will citizens be happy that their costs have been lowered?
Recall supporters have claimed that they can do it cheaper. I'll believe it when I see it. The numbers I've looked at simply point to one thing ... delay costs.
Shark,
They DON'T KNOW the financial answers. They just agreed on Saturday to assume mucho $$$ debt for a hole in the ground and a bunch of pipes going nowhere.
That means the district will now be stuck with debt payments of $600k/year or more for that. That will probably leave about $300k for the District to run on.
They just hired a $200-$250/hour lawyer. They are about to hire a $$$/hour management team. Where's the money gonna come from??
Oh, they didn't mention another assesment to pay for all that, they didn't mention loss of services in the campaign, didn't they?
Now maybe Miss Calhoun can explain all the financial details.
They couldn't have lied during the campaign, could they have?? - no, no, no, no. Oh, maybe they just didn't understand? It's too bad Ann forgot to ask them some questions during the campaign? Oh well, let the celebration continue for another week or two.
I think the CSD's got about 60 days or less left.
The important thing we'll be reminded about though is that it's not their fault.
Near as I can tell, the newly formed CSD is having a whole bunch of meetings,open to the public, with public comment time at each meeting. If you have questions and concerns, I hope you'll show up at the meetings, maybe sign on for some advisory committees and let them share in your expertise and benefit from your suggestions and ideas and input. Might even want to contact some of themembers of the Technical Task Force and review their report. Couldn't hurt.
Ann,
I agree that one should get involved in the CSD discussions in various ways.
However, the issue that I believe the Board needs to address first (because it has so much impact on all other discussions and decisions) is whether Measure B is legal and binding or not.
If the board doesn't first get some legal advice on this matter, they will be making decisions based on the assumption that Measure B dictates to them what they are allowed to do. I would suggest that the board ought to continue the fight against Measure B just to see how a judge rules on the matter.
Here's the rub ... the majority of the board supported Measure B. They won't raise the issue. Should someone raise the question during a meeting, they would ignore the question.
The reason this is a real problem is that if Measure B is illegal, the new CSD has an obligation to compare the costs and benefits of all possible locations, including TriW. If Measure B is legal, but doesn't bind the current project (which was only temporarily halted) they could, indeed, continue with the current project. If Measure B is legal and would halt the current construction, our future options are limited.
I am afaid that any expensive consutants the new board will bring in will follow the board's orders and only discuss alternative projects, not the possibility of continuing at TriW. Essentially I am afraid that the new board will act just as stubborn and pig-headed as the previous board did. The previous board seemed to refuse to consider any site but TriW and the new board seems to refuse to consider TriW as even a possibility. Both are massive errors in judgement.
So, Ann and other recall supporters, are you going to limit the alternatives available for discussion just like you complained the other group did?
Wait, you thought the previous board was stubborn and pig-headed? That they refused to consider alternatives? Yet you supported them? I don't get it.
As for taking a look at alternatives, Wildan Co., if they are contracted to do so, will compare the present plan with several viable options. We know what the present plan will cost (with a pile of unkonwns still left) so the question is: Compared to that, what would alternative systems cost? (including O&M etc.)That will give the community a clearer view of several systems. And that's something the "pig-headed" previous board SHOULD have done years ago.
I think the previous board was stubborn and made up their minds a bit too early. Perhaps TriW was a reasonable conclusion then, but it appeared to be premature.
That doesn't mean that a recall now was a good move. The recall was not about whether Stan, Gordon and Richard are the best of all possible people to run the CSD but about whether they are better than John, Chuck and Steve. Given that choice, it is obvious to me that one should go with those who know what they are talking about rather than those who are quotd in Tuesday's paper as saying "I don't know what to expect" and "I hadn't thought of that".
Measure B was an interesting idea, but please admit that while Measure B was advertised as giving citizens a choice in the location of the treatment plant, it seems to have confused two issues ... whether citizens should have a choice and whether TriW should be excluded from consideration. If Al had written two measures, one to give citizens a choice and another to forbid TriW it would be considerably easier to determine what people want. As it is, Measure B is a mess and doesn't really help us figure out what is best. If anything, the fact that some of the recall candidates support this mess makes me think they are muddle-headed at best.
As to your second point, you are saying that if the Board asks Wildan to compare the other potential sites (which ones we have yet to find out) to TriW, Wildan will. My question is whether the board will do something responsible and include TriW in the comparisons? Yes, any comparisons should be with a "lifecycle costing" model in mind which figures out the cheapest in the long run which would include all the other things, such as electricity to run pumps, trucking solid wastes and paying for someone else to take those solids.
So, will this board be true servants of the public and include TriW in the analysis or will they be pig-headed and ignore an option that might, in fact, be the cheapest for the community? Even if they do include TriW in the analysis, will they have the balls (haha) to choose TriW if it is the best option or will they be pig-headed and refuse to fight Meaure B in court?
Hopefully ...
Wildan is only the GM, they aren't doing any analysis.
That's the problem, the board is stopping, and is not doing anything to resolve the wastewater problem. Not good for the RWQCB.
There's enough existing STEP/STEG analysis on record in multiple reports that suggests the trade-off is a wash. The question is whether the costs of re-siting and re-structuring disposal and the delays are worth a potential $20M-$30 in savings including O&M. When you factor in throwing $10 mil construction away, add $5 mil in new design, $20-$30+ mil in financing, inflation, Measure B, god knows what in fines, new deferred costs, delays, lawsuits, aggravation, it's a HUGE risk.
The board right now has no way of even financing an alternate design, without another assesment and is also going to start eating up the district reserves. (for fire/water - so much for improving the water infrastructure).
So, if Wildan (or more property Dan Blesky, a Wildan employee) is just the acting GM, who will be doing a comparative analysis of the various possible options available to the district? I would imagine it would take more than hiring a new Bruce to sort out the various options within three months.
I suspect that the district has some (but perhaps small) chance of avoiding RWQCB fines if they are at least working on exploring realistic possibilities. Please tell me the board has taken some action to explore options instead of just moving forward with a half-assed plan based on hopes and little else so far. Without that, the state would seem compelled to act.
By the way, who is this new district legal counsel John McClendon and what is his track record?
Another analysis (that is done properly) would take 6 months, it would probably cost another $200k.
The problem is, AFTER the analysis, funding a design must be done - it's just not cheap, that process takes a couple of years, at best. So you see, you're looking at 3 years minimum realistically, even if all you do is redesign a facility, the collection would still have signifant re-design.
All the while, LO will be subject to about $7 mil+ in fines for stopping all progress. The RWQCB will use enforcement this time to both the district and propery - anyone who thinks otherwise is in lu-lu land. Regardless of one's opinion's about the previous boards, they always were progressing towards a solution.
The RWQCB's stance towards fines probably didn't help the design process, combined with the old board avoiding the County plan - just like the new guys are not considering the present plan.
Here's what I find interesting about what seems to be the general thrust of your general argument: That it's better to be lied to, better to be conned, better to be manipulated, better to stick with a bad plan than to work towards getting a better plan, that it's really not good to go ask the voters what they want to do or how much they want to pay to do it. In other words, if I understand what you've been saying lo these many weeks, it's that you think any community should elect its representatives and then sit quietly at the table like good little boys and girls and eat whatever gruel they dish out, then pay the bill, whatever it happens to be. And if the gruel kills you, oh, well, that's o.k., what can you do, sigh...
If the missing/apathetic 34% voters had actually bothered to chime in, we might be able to say with some degree of accuracy, that X% of the community shares your attitude while Y% does not. As it stands, we can only say that a slight majority of the community who bothered to show up and vote don't share your attitude. So, we have a changed board and maybe another chance to go back and do do this right.
As for recalling the Board, I thought they were being recalled primarily on the basis that they were (1)"pig-headed" about absolutely refusing to give the community a voice in the sewer plan, for ferociously forcing that plan into place no matter what, and for recklessly blowing through millions of tax dollars by refusing to wait to dig holes in the ground until after the election, and (2) the bungled fire tax, the dismissal of the committees, and other general governence problems, and (3) because they had lost the trust of enough of the voters to get themselves recalled (not an easy thing to do since people HATE recalls and they're really tough things to pull off.)
Some of the players opposing them would have made me suspicious of motives as only to stop any sewer.
Your arguments can cut both ways.
But that's not the general thrust of my argument that you keep trying to infer. I don't expect anybody to accept something they don't like, want, or can't pay for. But there is a reality to dealing with the wastewater problem. I certainly don't expect a person who doesn't have the means to pay for something so support compliance with an unfunded mandate. They didn't with the County, and they don't know. Only now, the elected administration is in their town.
The wastewater system is neither as bad as opponents make it out to be nor as wonderful as proponents make it out to be.
Ann, your response to madeadecision is interesting.
You suggest that he (astute readers will note that I should be reluctant to use the word "he") would prefer being lied to than work toward a better plan. I don't think he said this.
Maybe if I repeat his point you will understand it more clearly. Whether the previous board lied or not, whether the previous board made mistakes or not, at this point in time it will likley cost considerably more to move the plant out of town.
I would agree.
If the solution offered by the new guys (they tell us it will cost only $70M) ends up being more expensive on a monthly basis than the project that had already started would have been, we will be paying extra per month for the privilege of having the plant out of town and for having a new board. While Ann and some would think it is clearly worth the trade-off, I would say that this trade off depends on the cost. If it runs me $10 extra per month for 30 years, it is $3600 that I would rather have for other purposes. (Note: part of the way the "new" plan will be cheaper than the current plan is to sell off the TriW site to a developer ... not exactly what the pro-recall people had in mind ... but if it is not done, there goes another $10M ... or $10/month.)
To turn your argument on it's head ... if the new guys end up taking actions than cost us more per month than the plant that was already under construction ... it the new guys that are the liars. Recall supporters told us there would be no fines. Recall supporters told us they already had a site and a plan. Recall supporters said that they could "fast track" their plan and start construciton within two years. They told us that we would get another low interest loan and that we would not lose the $35M in Federal dollars associated with the previous plant site/design.
The CSD is now in a bind unless there is some court ruling on Measure B. If a court rules it illegal, the new CSD could always choose to follow the spirit of Measure B and compare between all reasonable sites, including TriW. If a court rules Measure B legal and the state doesn't appeal, the CSD could perhaps use it for cover ... claiming that Measure B is beyond their control so we shouldn't be fined. [Note: I write "perhaps" because the citizens of the community are those who voted for B, so the citizens of the community did have control over whether to procede or not. The CSD which simply represents us may not be able to argue that this was a delay beyond the control of the community.]
In any case, at least it is sunny today...
I will presume, for now, that if Measure B is ruled to be illegal (it will be interesting to see how that goes because the measure was written to probide that if any part of it's tossed out, the remaining part will still be in force, so I wonder how a judge will parse it out??), the new board will present options with prices to the community of several plans, with prices, (something the previous board could have done but refused to do (and the answer of WHY they so adamently refused to do so is, in itself, extremely important to think about). Then the community could vote on where and what and how much, then we can all go home and start paying the piper.
Also, you mention this $35 million loan as if it actually existed. So far as I know, tht $35 is "bookmarked," and will only exist if and when the Feds get some money. People speak of this as something that is real and in-hand and so will be "lost." You can't "lose" what you never had in the first place. Ditto for the State Revolving Fund. Lot of people speak of that as if it were a One Shot Only deal, forgetting the word in its title: "Revolving," as in merry-go-round, get on and off and on again.
One of the problems with wrong information or complex information with the footnotes lopped off is that it can so easily be twisted into a false mantra, or morph itself into a false mantra that then gets endlessly repeated but never examined.
In a previous column I noted this phenomenon and that with a project this complex, accurate information has to carry so many caveats and footnotes that few people could even pick up a hand-out because it'd be pages and pages long -- the great Los Osos American Novel in length. So we end up with misleading mantras repeated as if they were true.
For example, at last night's (10/6) CSD meeting, Buel gave out information concering the "waiver" still on file up at the State Water Board. How many in the community knew anything about that? Or what it meant. Per Bruce, it could be invoked and used as a defense against fines . . whatever that means . . . so without a better understanding of what's really at work here, people who stand up at meetings repeating Roger Briggs "threats" without looking deeper are just engaging in furthering Briggs' fear tactics. Frightened people do not think clearly, which is the whole point.
Blow by blow.
Agreed that the past board should have given us options. The current board should also do so. I was heartened when John said he wanted estimates of how much it would cost to go ahead with the current plan versus possible alternatives because it would be foolishness to pay considerably more. I was discouraged when Chuck then said "we know we want to move the plant" ... at what cost, Chuck? At any cost?
As to the matter of why the previous board didn't present all options to the people and ask for opinions ... I don't care. That's history. Knowing that they were well-intentioned people or that they were crooked-to-the-core doesn't change the current questions the current board needs to address soon. I suppose that if one were convinced that the previous board were evil (as some in yesterday's meeting seemed to imply), one might feel tempted to simply do the opposite of what the previous board would have suggested. That would be foolishness.
You seem to be saying that if we for sure won't get $35M if we change the project it doesn't matter because it was never a sure thing anyway. I would beg to differ. I would rather have a chance of winning $35M than zero chance of winning $35M. Would you throw away a lottery ticket simply becuase there is not a guarantee of a win?
I also note that you refer to the SRF loan as if it is a sure thing that we will get it again. This seems to go against your position about counting chickens before they hatch in the previous thought.
I love your comment that ignoring the details and creating a mantra doesn't help. Reminds me of "Move the Sewer" and "THREEcall".
"the great Los Osos American Novel" would be interesting to read. Why don't you write it?
My understanding on the waiver issue is that the SWRB would need to repeal the waiver before any retroactive fines could be imposed. I have no doubts that the board would be willing to consider this action if they view Los Osos as a scofflaw community.
I don't think Briggs threats are just empty threats designed to get people to make choices against their will. I think he is saying what the staff will be telling the RWQCB in their upcomming meeting ... that the CSD promised to achieve certain goals to avoid fines yet did not achieve those goals even though they could easily have done so ... so fines are in order.
Fear tactic or fair warning?
Dear Inlet.
Interesting that you apparently don't care that you have been repeatedly lied to by your elected CSD board, i.e. if they didn't look at all options you don't care. The problem isn't that they didn't look at those options (they didn't) but that they told you they had -- and hadn't. That always causes me to ask: O.K. if you're willing to lie to me about something that simple, what ELSE are you lying about.
The state revolving fund is a revolving fund. Not a One Shot Only Fund. And I do not sign contracts to spend $35 million on a new house based on having a lottery ticket in my pocket that may or may not pay off. I wait until I see if the numbers match and somebody actually hands me a box full of money.
What the State Board needs to understand, and let's hope the new CSD negotiating team can present them with some interesting facts, is that the recalled 3 may not have been, uh, honest with them or the CC -- remember old Bait and Switch? Our system of government is set up so that elected officials and government staffs are PRESUMED AT ALL TIMES to be telling the truth. Other elected officials and other government staff members PRESUME TRUTHFULNESS from their conterparts. A member of the public who comes before them with allegations (or even strong evidence -- i.e. that wonderful 1998 vs 1999 CC & WRQCB staff report on the Ponds of Avalon for example) of falsehood, is PRESUMED to be a liar or a dishonest troublemaker & etc. and will be ignored.
What now remains to be seen is IF this newly elected board will now be PRESUMED TO BE TRUTHFUL and if so, and they bring forth evidence of bait and switch, failure to assess the community, failure to examine options, etc. etc. will their governmental couterparts now believe them and act accordingly?
We'll see.
Ann, it is interesting that you don't seem to care that this new group will likely end up raising our montly bills but you would rather focus on why the previous board made mistakes. Like I keep saying, if the previous board lied (and please note that no one has shown this, even though Ron presents some evidence that makes it look like they were hopeful optimists), focusing on the past and ignoring the current dilema we find ourselves in is a mistake.
If you insist on looking into the rearview mirror while driving, just to know where you've been with 100% certainty you will undoubtedly drive into a ditch or something worse.
You have a great point ... that if the previous board was lying about some things they should be viewed with suspicion. Let's take that approach to the new board as well. They promised us a new sewer, a $70M plant out of town, no fines, keeping the low-interest loan and to do it all in two years. (Well, at least those campaigning for the new board promised these things.)
So, when you consider that all of these things are questionable at best, wouldn't you say that such promises are lies? Why should I trust this new group who appears to be willing to lie just to get elected?
Please realize that you can't simply point at one group and claim they are the liars while refusing to look carefully at the claims your own side is making. It makes you look more like a partisan hack than a reasonable person.
Of course Ann's writings are the same as a partisan hack, she's the James Carville of Los Osos. Maybe she'll even take that as a compliment!
My question to Ann is this. Do yo own property in the prohibition zone? I'm really interested in the answer to that one.
Post a Comment