The following is a cc e-mail from CSD President to Ms. Doduc at the State Water Board in reply to an email on behalf of the SWB (at the bottom of this piece.) What's interesting about this is, of course, the State Water Board's previous decisions to not bother letting the CSD know about their rulings but instead having their decision issued first to the press rather than actually dealing with a CSD Board President or General Manger. This is waaaay cool. Think of the fun ramifications. No need for long, boring meetings and wearisome offical memos. Just call a local reporter and have a little chatty-poo. And if staff is now making critical decisions, then think of the savings in time for Board members. No need for any these headache-making decisions. Let staff do it. Much nicer. Plus disclosing ex-parte communications don't count at the SWB? Woa! This is cool, indeed.
To:
Dear Ms. Doduc: Please thank Mr. Lauffer for his reply on behalf of your Board. I will plan to attend and use my five minutes of public comment, but I must correct his assessment of the hearing and public testimony that was given at the November 16, 2005 public hearing regarding the Los Osos SRF loan.
We brought several speakers from our Board and staff, in order to make statements during the public comment period only, at five minutes apiece. Citizens also made the twelve hour round trip to testify in support of our Los Osos Board, at their five minutes apiece.
No one at the State Water Board contacted us prior to the hearing, nor did we ever receive a copy of the hearing notice, any prepared staff report or the draft resolution. We heard about the November 16th meeting through a local reporter.
We were not granted "ample" or any additional time to present very important information to your Board on behalf of our community, other than the same equal time that was granted to any citizen of the United States, in this case, five minutes apiece.
We were not granted any additional time to present our case and very important information that is pertinent to your Board's anticipated actions, and we were and remain very concerned about this, as I testified during my five minutes of testimony.
As you may recall, I testified that I would be unable to list all of my comments and concerns to you, due to the time constraints that were placed on my testimony. I also testified that I was concerned that staff's recommendations may have been impossible. I even made one additional attempt to reach you at the end of the hearing, asking your Board an additional question, which was something to the effect of, "what if the LOCSD cannot bond and/or legally meet the requirements that you have set forward in your "take-it-or-leave-it-resolution and conditions"?.
The State Water Board office and/or staff did not respond to numerous emails and phone calls that I made during the weeks of October 30-November 16, 2005 (to Celeste Cantu, William Ruckeyser and Darrin Polhemus), other than one returned phone call from Darrin before he went on vacation and one from a very kind secretary that told me that everyone on staff and the Board were "too busy" to respond to my calls.
I never received any return communications from the Water Board and/or Staff - (you explained that you were unable to return my calls, due to the hearing, thank you for explaining), but I never heard back from either Celeste Cantu or William Ruckeyser, although the press was receiving regular communications from them. This method of communication and cooperation is also of great concern to the 15,000+ citizens that I represent as an elected official and official spokesperson for the Los Osos community. This is another reason why I traveled to speak with you last month.
Our community and our duly elected Board of Directors heard about the December 16, 2005 hearing through a reporter; I then had to call Darrin Polhemus to confirm this. We were never sent any official noticing or staff report for the meeting and the staff report that was eventually produced wasn't even posted on your website until one day before the hearing.
How can our Boards communicate more effectively if I cannot get anyone to return my calls, notice us of official meetings, provide staff reports and/or respond to our Board in any cooperative way?
Ms. Doduc, I respectfully request that your board allow more time to hear more information from us before making any final decisions about Los Osos, considering the seriousness of the situation.
As I understand it, only the Board can make decisions, yet your staff made several decisions along the way about this SRF loan, on your behalf, prior to the hearing held on November 16, 2005. A citizen during public testimony requested a disclosure of all exparte communications that occurred leading up to the staff decision to "reject the first negotiated deal that came from Assemblyman Blakeslee's week of negotiations" and he was told by Board Member Richard Katz that "exparte did not apply".
These staff decisions are causing great repercussions and harm to the citizens of Los Osos. If it is truly only the Board that can act on these matters, then is it also possible that your staff overstepped its authority and your Board was not given ample opportunity to consider all facts that it should have received before any decisions were made?
As an elected official, I understand this role well, and you are now being asked to make a very important decision tomorrow without receiving all of the facts.
I have great concerns that your Board was not apprised by your staff of all the events that transpired at the staff level regarding this loan - and that perhaps these staff decisions were decisions that only your Board could make. Additional information and testimony might allow you to make a more informed decision about Los Osos, if you actually were able to hear more about what we have to say - and five minutes from me will probably not be enough to accomplish this.
Thank you very much again for your re-consideration of my request. Most Sincerely, from Lisa Schicker, LOCSD President by email or cell today 805-234-1228. ============================================================From: "Michael Lauffer" Date: 2005/12/08 Thu PM 01:08:05 PSTTo: CC: "Celeste Cantu" , "Tam Doduc" Subject: State Water Board Agenda Item on Los OsosMs. Schicker,
After conferring with Chair Doduc, you will be permitted five minutes to make your presentation to the State Water Resources Control Board at tomorrow's meeting. Recall that this loan has been before the board multiple times. Further, the board's proposed action is the logical result of the district's actions in response to the November 16 State Water Board meeting. At the November 16 meeting, you had been afforded ample time to make the district's case.-maml
Posts
13 comments:
With the morning news of $500,000 being paid out of tax payer money to settle suits which more than likely would have not been successful by CASE, et.al, you spend time on some nit?
Where is your priority? When are you going to be balanced in your writings. One would think that this needless waste of tax payer money would be something that a purported journalist would relish questioning?
Interesting piece, Ann. Guess we need to remind readers of two things:
1) Ann is an opinion writer
2) Why read her work if you dislike it so much?
Everyone who follows Ann's column knows, and has known forever, that she supports the new board.
Blindly support without objectivity? Opinion pieces need some verifiable facts to convince readers to agree!
Ann is always cafeful in her commentaries, thats why she is so threatening to some, a few to the point of obsession. The continued hysterics of the supporters of the ousted, recalled, & disgraced former board, IMHO, has whats become tiresome & blindered. Ann, Ron, Steve, & our brave beleagered board deserve respect and appreiciation for their efforts, standing up to the State & their toadys. By the way, how do you know the CASE suit, et al,, wouldn't stand up in court. Can you see the future? Betcha thought the recall & measure B would fail too. Betcha think Osos is a running open sewer & the bay is poisonous to the touch. Betcha haven't read the MBNEP's report on the health of the bay. I bet you wouldn't know real responsible journalism or real responsible science or policy making if it broke open & flooded your living
room like a backhoe busting a water main buried in the sand.
I would like to chime in here. Ann is one of very few journalists who dares to provide us with an alternative to the Telegram Trivial. Alternative voices are always called out as being not based on fact, pure speculation etc. Ann is one of a handful of people in Los Osos who knows the entire history of this problem. If you don't like it, get your information elsewhere.
To the third anon, You may have hit a serious point on the head.
I think it was by accident.
But there it is.
There is one thing we all can agree on, we like our RIGHT to free speech. But, what if the original "Dreamers" had that constraint upon them? They couldn't have told us the story of the "Ponds of Avalon"
Would we be it the same pickle?Mike Green
Lets repeal the first ammendment! It's the root of all our problems!
sorry- I ment IN the same pickle, Dang, I need an editor!Mike Green
dogpatchy, are you threatened by those that don't march in lock step to your views? "We won the recall get over it", no wait, that is suppose to be YOUR programed response message not mine, sorry!
If the CASE lawsuits could be won, do you really think they would
have settled? Do you think Al would acquiesce if he really felt he could win? Doesn't seem to be his style!
And yes, Measure B WILL be struck down when it has its day in court. Even a first year law student can see the numerous flaws. But of course, it is a moot point now.
LO seems to be on the verge of disintegration. 3000 against CSD, 3000 + 20 for the CSD, and more than 3000 with no apparent opinion. No SFR loan, and bill collectors at the door.
Quite an accomplishment in two plus months! I do wonder if I wasn't a property owner, if I would feel the same as you? Enough for now!
I keep asking the same question over and over and over.
Before the election and even a few weeks after the election the answer was "don't worry, we're working on it" and "we've got a plan" and "you've got to give use some time."
My question ... will a recall and the new board be able to save us some money on our sewer bills? Ann here has been quite an advocate for the notion that a fancy ponding system that is out of town will save os money on O&M.
However, it appears that whatever gains may have been made are now pretty much eaten up by the huge hole this board continues to dig. What did Steve Senet tell us his grandfather told him about what to do when you find yourself in a huge hole?
So, let me get back to my main question. Back in mid September we had a pretty good fix on how long it would take until the TriW plant was online and on how much it would cost us each per month. Now it would appear that neither is well known. If, a few years from now, we find that the costs will be higher, who can we reasonably blame.
Ann would want us to blame the previous CSD board for everything. I would be willing to blame them for a few things. However, I wonder whether Ann will be able to bring herself to blame Lisa and crew or even take some on herself for advocating for the recall and for Measure B.
While it is nice to have an opinion columnist who doesn't necessarily parrot what the TT tells us, it would be nice to have an opinion columnist who takes a critical look at all sides before deciding what to write.
Ann, maybe I am just asking you whether you would be willing to pay my sewer bill should it end up more than about $250/month. After all, you told me we would save money. You told me this new board was going to be wise. You told me that we could just get back in line for another SRF loan. You told us that the fines were just threats. If, down the line, we see you were wrong, would you be willing to put your money where your keyboard is? Will you pay my bill if it gets so high that I cannot afford it?
So, if I'm against this boondoggle, I couldn't be a home owner? Wrong again. Own a business here too. Your rant betrays your frustations & projections. Call me dogmatic??
Anon, YOU had better look in the mirror. Your side has been in power & spewing BS and implementing incompetent policy for YEARS longer than the new board. Oh I forgot, dReamers are malaigned, innocent, And blameless in all respects. Down here in Dogpatch we're just rubes deserving only of fines and relocation. Oh lawsuits filed by dReamers are rightous too, cuz they're special. Hope your foundation cracks during the trenching down your street. Or maybe you don't live in the prohibition ghetto. Either way you're a hypocrite at worse or a lemming at best. As far as free speech goes, remmember Herr Gustofson, his gavel & the snitch in the audience?? If you do,its with fondness, no doubt.
A note to Inlet: When you say "you" as in "You said so and so, you promised such and such, you said this new board would be wise, you said, you said.etc." You must be conflating my comments with various statements made by other people. I never "promised" an out of town plant would be cheaper. What I have repeately said is that IF Darrin Polhemus' figures are right, it's possible that the out of town site will be cheaper, AND/OR may offer more bang for the buck, thereby making it cheaper in the long run & etc. I have also said in the past that the Coastal Commission's hasty report listed the out-of-town-site at either a million less or 5 -6 million more and that I figured 5-6 mil on a $150 mil project was chump change and certainly something the voters should be able to vote on. & etc.
Also, both I AND Mr. Ruykeyser, the SWB's PR guy have repeatedly said, it's a REVOLVING FUND and Los Osos can reapply when ready. Does Mr. Ruykeyser not know what he's talking about? Granted, he's having a heck of a time figuring out what the word "negotiation" means, but . . .
Your comments are fair. I am probably getting confused between all the different players here. About the costs in town versus out of town, quite a while back I claimed they would be higher out of town and you said something like "well, we don't really know the numbers." Then, once Lisa told us Darrin agreed that out of town could save money, you jumped on that bandwagon, with a proviso. I would like to repeat that Darrin (during the RWQCB hearing) said that out of town was not cheaper. Presuming that Lisa told us the unvarnished truth appears to have been a mistake. Maybe she meant "Darrin agreed that if we pay a lot more up front we could save a bit on O&M with an out of town plant" rather than "we can save with an out of town plant." She seems to be getting better at pushing her viewpoint by careful omission of words.
Either that, or Darrin is a lying sack of weasel dung.
About the revolving aspect of the fund ... this doesn't mean that we'll get it again. Revolving means that as other communities who have borrowed money pay it back into the fund, it will be loaned out again to other communities. In the case of the LOCSD, don't you think that suing the SWRCB and our default will both decrease the chance of getting another SRF loan? Don't you think that a 218 vote, which the state will certainly now require of Los Osos even if we are lucky enough to get a monster loan (they've never loaned out that much in the past and likely never will again due to our behavior) will have a pretty high chance of failure because it will be difficult to convince property owners to promise to pay the bills of the LOCSD if the LOCSD defaults again?
Nope, this board has pretty much hosed up any future financing options just like they've hosed the contractors and hosed the TriW site.
It seems that if they could not have done a better job if their goal had been to simply throw up roadblocks to construction. While they tell us they do want to build a sewer, I've not yet seen any constructive action that shows this is their intent.
Next up, who can tell us about how the community can qualify for a ZERO interest loan? I think that may abe up for a workshop/ info discussion somehwere along the line.
Post a Comment