Pages

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, the Bay News, Morro Bay, CA, for April 26, 06

Mother Calhoun Explains It All

Dear Regional Water Quality Control Board,

You will be entering a mine field with this upcoming April 28th Cease & Desist Order hearing, so Mother Calhoun hopes you’ll think hard about the advice she’s about to share with you:

GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out. Elected and appointed boards are utterly and critically dependent on their staff to give them correct information. Be warned. Most of what you’ve been told about Los Osos and the preconceived information you appear to have rattling around in your heads is just plain wrong. Los Osos is not “anti-sewer.” It’s anti -unaffordable ginormous sewer plant in the middle of town. Big difference.

Don Corleone was right. The Godfather knew it’s not personal, it’s business. When you or your staff slip out of neutral and start ramping up into nose-out-of-joint, steam-coming-out-of-the-ears, old-tapes-running-in-the-head mode, it’s stopped being business. Bruised egos, bad information, incompetent bungling, CYA scrambling, too-cozy-by-far collusion always results in really bad blowback. Ethically superior, scientifically sound regulatory agencies play a vital and much needed role in protecting the public. Run amok, badly informed, ego-driven, scientifically unsound, politically compromised, bungling regulators are worse than useless; they are a danger to the whole delicate system of checks and balance. Don’t go there.

Since most of you are from “out of town” and only breeze through for a few days at a time, it’s understandable that what you know about a region you are dealing with may be limited and therefore your dependence on the local “staff” is doubly critical. But you really have a responsibility to keep your eyes open. When it becomes clear to you that during an “under oath” factual presentation one of your key “scientific” staff members gave you out of date data, pay attention! If your staff isn’t up to speed, your decisions will also be embarrassingly, woefully out of date.

Beware of the Law of Unintended Consequences. If you’re contemplating some action, failure to think it through can result in disaster. For example, at the official CDO informational meeting, your key “Mr. Official Go-To Water Engineer Science Guy” stated that he was “unaware that Los Osos is in [water] overdraft.” Your staff is asking you to vote to remove from the Los Osos watershed some 36 million gallons of wasteWATER every year and your lead Science Guy is “unaware that Los Osos is in [water] overdraft?” This is not good. Bridge out, slow to 60.

Since everyone assumes this whole mess will end up in court, do you really want to give anyone a shot at revisiting Resolution 83-13, in court, under oath, under penalty of perjury? Can that resolution or your board and staff withstand the questions that surely will be raised by experts in best-use water management practices, sustainability, wastewater reuse, basin plan management, updated water studies and/or the newest septic/bioremediation methods?

And, finally, TV’s Dr. Phil is fond of asking squabbling couples if they’re “rights fighters,” – my way or the highway – and if their go-nowhere, solve-nothing rights fighting is “working for them.” Have the ACL’s and CDO’s moved a wastewater treatment plan one step closer to completion or not? You’re in the business of Water Quality, so please tell Mother Calhoun, How’s all this working for ya?

Months ago, Regional Water Board member Mr. Shallcross expressed a hope that one day Los Osos would come together and sit around and sing “Kumbaya.” Weirdly, against enormous odds and in spite of active attempts to target and financially harm them with the Regional Board’s pointless pumping scheme, the community and the CSD are actually moving ahead on a wastewater project. There may not be actual singing going on, but the results of the updated sewer project report are due to go before the community in about 17 weeks. If Mr. Shallcross bothers to listen carefully that day, he might actually be able to hear this town humming a few bars of his song.

In the meantime, there it is: The critical question that the RWQCB will answer on April 28th: Do you want to be a rock in the road, useful only for time-and-money-wasting delay, delay, delay? Or do you want a sustainable, water-smart, community supported wastewater project to get up and running as fast as possible? The community and the CSD is moving forward. So, what are you going to do? Block the road? Or move forward, too? The choice is yours alone to make.

33 comments:

Ron said...

I met Ann in person only once, when I started editing The Bay Breeze in 1996, and she was a columnist for that small community newspaper, so some might find it a little strange that I am about to admit this:

Ann, I love you.

Look how many great, great takes you have just right here:

"Los Osos is not “anti-sewer.” It’s anti -unaffordable ginormous sewer plant in the middle of town. Big difference."

Beautiful. The only thing I would have added to that is, "It’s anti -unaffordable ginormous sewer plant in the middle of town, with absolutely no documentable rationale behind the siting whatsoever. None."

"CYA scrambling..."

... like I've never seen before. That CYA scrambling also applies to the SWRCB financial assistance staff when they scrambled to CYA after they discovered they were about to fund a lot of expensive decorative items in Los Osos even though their policy brilliantly states, "Ineligible: decorative items." That was hard CYA scrambling, and I'm not too sure they C'd with that scramble.

"...too-cozy-by-far collusion."

The interesting thing about that collusion is it's with the same people that they vehemently disagreed with in 1997-2000. Talk about a hate-love relationship.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Hey, could one of you guys please explain how a pond thing out of town will be financed with our now even lower junk bond status of CCC?

Anonymous said...

With a higher interest rate and bigger payments of course.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Anon, thanks. Ugh.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Your note to the board, while well intended, will fall on deaf ears. You will be repeating to them what they consider to be lies. Perhaps if you were to explain why the RWQCB staff response is incorrect on the issues like nitrate levels versus nitrogen levels and pumping during a time of overdraft. Unless you can show the staff position to be in error (and in this note you've not even attempted this) you will be ignored. Perhaps rightly so. You've been told a few times now about the RWQCB staff response on these two issues and you seem to continue making the same old argument the staff response demolished.

Your tone is also a bit petulant and demanding. Again, if you want to influence the board, you can't insult them and you can't criticize their staff's conclusions without a solid argument.


I find funny that Ron and Ann both have harped on the issue of cost. Do you both still refuse to believe that costs are going up up up? Haven't you bothered to read and comprehend the cost argument over these many months? Haven't you looked at the spreadsheet I put together for you so that you could do your own cost estimates? Sheesh!

Again, it is not enough to simply deny the argument others make, you've got to explain the reasons you disagree. On the cost issue I don't think that either of you have done your homework. Perhaps it would be wisest for the both of you to do your background work first before you pretend that costs will go down. Hey, you're both journalists or at least get stuff printed from time to time in various newspapers ... why don't you call an account who can step you through the various aspects of this situation. Shouldn't take more than half an hour or so.

Anonymous said...

So many opinions and ideas about what is right about this current board of incompetent anarchists and wrong with, well, everyone else in the state. Because of this, everytime I see people weigh in on costs I always ask myself the same question. Is this person going to be impacted by costs, or are they playing with house money. In other words, do they live in Los Osos and are they property owners in the PZ. Maybe this has been answered here, but how will Ron and Ann be impacted when obviously the cost of this sewer goes through the roof?

Anonymous said...

Interesting, anon. lets take a quick gander
Will the Water Gods be impacted- no
Do they hold the power here -yes
Do you think cost will matter to them?
You answer that one

Do the members of the LOCSD live here?
yes
Do you think cost matters to them?
you answer that one

Anonymous said...

Thanks all, this has been a wonderfully wild and wacky ride over the last year as I've lurked on this blog. All plenty good stuff - even if it does sometimes regress to mud-slinging and name-calling. I honor all sides (and there certainly are many) for your willingness to take a shot and stay generally positively engaged if not sometimes a bit uncivil. Your commitment to the task is commendable. And this blog is a testament to the upsides of the blogsphere. Kudos to all.

So what brings me out? Now? I've got many more questions than suggestions. Or even opinions. But it does seem to me that .....

Yeah, Los Osos coulda/shoulda/mighta been more proactive 20 years ago to fix our sewer/water problems. Woulda been nice. But it didn't happen. And the tab STILL needs to be paid. Now with interest. And yeah, some government agencies probably shoulda been a bit more proactive in forcing a solution. I'm sure there would have been a little blowback to that too ;-) Curious how so many of these same people are now seeking cover under those slack mistakes. But the gov's didn't force the issues and let the community slide. Now there's a lot of catch'n up to do. Nobody should think it's going to be easy. Or cheap. And wayward mis-steps & wrong turns, poor planning & indecision, and political & special interest wrangling all only add to the difficulty and the bill. Consider:

The Dreamers had a dream - Faster, Better, Cheaper than anything the county might build. Cool. But to fulfill that dream they had to make one very significant compromise: Parse the PZ and provide only a limited solution, hoping to win with a weak bet. In hindsight, does anybody now think that was a good play? Reality is
things always grow bigger and more complex than originally planned. If parsing the rule and designing compromise was the only way to make it faster, better and cheaper that should have been an indicator to go back to the drawing boards. Winning on a cheap bet is a lucky draw not a solution. Or a good strategy. Then, as events unfolded, waste water treatment designs had to be changed to meet engineering specs which then somewhat weirdly morphed into a downtown city park/ampitheater/sewer. Lots of people found that an odd combo. Many found it distasteful. But even that strange bird might have flown assuming it would work (which is still unproven) and if its *real* costs had been calculated (or even well estimated). Sadly neither were ever effectively proven or presented. Faster, Better and
Cheaper are comparative terms but there was never a legitimate comparison to any alternative(s). At which point the decision pretty much hinged on saving the subsidized and 'relatively' cheap financing. Build it or lose the cheap money. The wrath of the RWQCB was still an uncertainty. Politics aside, not an easy aside in this town at this time, many found the whole thing so irregular as to force a CSD recall election. The old CSD was recalled and a new CSD invested with (1) make it real and (2) move it if possible. (Some would say move it regardless.)

Nobody likes to lose 'cheap' money. Once lost that pretty much means financing for anything else is going to be more expensive. And the longer it takes the more
expensive its going to be. Duh. The clock is ticking. But does this mean we should go with the still not proven cheaper/better/faster solution with all its warts and uncertainties just to save a few precious seconds (read: dollars) on the clock? Or does it suggest taking a step back and doing a more thorough and fully developed
plan? Something that should have been done in the first place. Note, there is no way this thing is ever going to turn out cheap. The $200/month sewer might well be off the table. Or maybe not. We won't really know until we develop a plan and run the numbers, right? $200/month was once deemed pretty expensive and now its looking pretty good. Curious how perspectives change the meaning of absolute values. Until real analysis has been completed and there are some legitmate numbers (and options) on the table everything else is just a lot of frantic handwaving and argumentative discussion. Interesting perhaps (see my intro above). And helpful in developing new ideas perhaps. However, reality in this situation reduces to hard numbers of workable options. The key words there being numbers and workable. I
compliment Shark for projecting some numbers. That's a good start. But only a start. Sort of a skeleton on which to hang additional detail. For example, I didn't see anything mentioned about operations and maintenance which I believe was considered one of the key failings of the TRW financial projections. So add that to the numbers. But remember, TRW is still betoken to the original sin. It is not a solution for the entire community or future growth and as such it is a devil's compromise. I don't know, are all the other options similarly compromised? If so then they're screwed too.

Certainly nobody is enjoying the current CDO dance and what it (might) mean for future expenses, loss of aquafer, air pollution, traffic and property values. Don't be silly, nobody WANTS continued nitrate pollution. Nobody WANTS diminishing acquafer. And certainly nobody WANTS increased expenses and diminished property values. These aren't current choices they are derivatives of yesterday's wasted opportunities. And heaven knows there have been lots and lots of those. Plenty to go around and almost too many to document. The CDO's and all they entail now seem somewhat disassociated from the sewer plans. One would think they should be an integrated issue but ..... well, one can only hope and work for reason and sanity to prevail. If it does then the CDO's and other injunctive penalties will be re-integrated
with the sewer development and we'll all have our oars in the water and rowing in the same direction. If not then we're in for a hundred years war of attrition and everybody loses.

I'm looking forward to seeing what the new CSD proposes. It can't get here too soon. I do hope they give fair analysis (meaning engineering review and accountable
numbers) to more than one option. And we need to relieve ourselves of original sin and look for a comprehensive community solution. Whatever that takes. My gut tells
me there isn't such a solution using common, or even new, WWTF technology. We've spun our wheels enough already to realize that our situation is complex in lots of
ways. At some point I think we're going to have address all parts of the sysem: At the input (each house), at the sewer facility, and at re-introduction (the aquafer). If each house managed the initial treatment (see previously noted bio-systems) delivering an already reduced grey water load to a more easily sited and managed facility
(read: better, faster, cheaper) allowing for easy re-introduction to the aquafer this would seem to get us down the road fastest while minimizing the debt load. It would do that by transferring some of the front end costs and construction (plus O&M) to individual homeowners. Nothing wrong with that it if soothes the CDO monster. I'm sure subsidized financing could be found for the homeowners - and very likely for the entire system - for such a novel alternative solution to a classic problem. There are a good number of governmental agencies (some with money to burn), hardware providers and alternative solutions folks who would love to see something like this succeed. I don't have the time or the where-with-all to generate the numbers for something like this (shame on me). But my sense is it would work, it would be cost-effective and financed with cheap money and could be designed and built as quickly (probably faster) than anything else on the table right now. It's a full community solution. It resolves all the issues. And the frosting on the cake? Los Osos becomes a leader in alternative solutions to challenging problems. No longer the unwanted step-child of SLO. An eco-tour desitination
resort. Imagine that. Wouldn't that be nice?

Still Dreaming ......

Anonymous said...

There's one thing to add which you can be certain will fuel problems even after the study is completed, regardless of results.

It's called sunk cost. Ripley won't evaluate sunk costs. So another political brohaha will occur, where if the cost of a different plant is less than Tri-W, but not with the sunk costs, the arguments will rage.

Sunk costs, sunk costs suck - and right now they could be up to $50-$60 million. That's $50-$70/month added on to whatever bill.

You can already prepare the different speeches and posturing by our magnificent community 'leaders' who have all brought you this mess.

The blame will be even worse. I told you so's from all the egos. Rehashing the town's history yet again.

Count on it, more Blame, blame, blame on everyone but Los Osos.

Shark Inlet said...

Publicworks, you forget one thing. Should we choose to build at TriW, some of those sunk costs (the cost of designing TriW, for example) will work for us. If we design another plant, it is an additional cost.

The inflation rate and time before construction starts and interest rate wield far greater influence influence here on my thinking than sunk costs. As you say, we can't do much about those costs. However, if we get construction started soon, say at the TriW site, our total bill will be far lower than elsewhere.

The recent dropping of the LOCSDs bond rating makes me think that dissolution is a good idea. Now the difference between the interest rate the county can get and what the LOCSD can get is even greater. The county will also be far more likely to get contractors to bid on the job than the LOCSD.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Shark, good point. Which construction company would WANT to bid here when the lawsuits on the old construction companies have not even been settled? How long do we have to wait and what cost will that be to settle those suits, one rhetorically wonders. Adds another strike to the costs this CSD has tallied up against the citizens.

Mike Green said...

To the Dreamer Anon:
Nice post ,well written.
Sure, it would be nice if we could all just get along and support the current CSD, and the Water Gods would be appeased with our homage, and the county would finaly step in and take responsibility for their part in this, and the State would realize that unfunded mandates have problems that need addressing.
But here is the rub,
Money
The dang thing costs too much pure and simple, even if dear ol Sharkey got all of his/her wishes it would still cost too much.
Even if her majesty Joyce Albright the dissolver of democracy got her wishes and put us under the control of the County and they built the thing at TriW, It would still cost too much. Whats broken here is the way we fund our infrastucture and who gets to decide what and where.
Did the builders of the pyramids get to pick the size and color? I think not.
Ron hit it right on the head "friends don't let friends design sewer plants"
Blame? who the heck cares anymore?
Costs? "Affordibility is a trickey problem"
Cost will not matter
If the CSD right now put up a plan with a gold plated fence and a theater and wine bar on top that would only cost the property owners a thousand dollars a month and got bids on it with a completion date before 2010. Guess who would jump right in line and say "GREAT"
The Water Gods

Mike Green said...

Sharkey, contractor bids? You are joking.
How many bids did we get last time?
Two?

Anonymous said...

At 10%, with all the sunk costs, Tri-W will likely cost about $300/month (and maybe for 30 years, not 20 years).

No one talks about extra benefit a 20 year low interest loan makes versus a 30 year higher interest loan.

If you do the calculations, the total payment difference is staggering.

The total lack of comprehesion by this community of contracts and public finance is mind-boggling.

It's no wonder, since saying 'it's gotta be cheaper' sells better.

No matter what, I'm sure we'll additional litigation, just because of the final price-tag for whatever happens, County or not.

My bet is the Courts will be running the CSD in the end.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Sorry if I jump in here Shark.

So you think that Ripley isn't friends with the current board? Hasn't the name Ripley been around town in conjunction with Al and his pals?

Who besides Ripley would want to bid on whatever proposal he comes up with? They sent 10 RFP letters out, Ripley and 2 others responded (one who even confessed during a CSD meeting that he couldn't deliver something of this magnitude). The other guy was from out of state and looked like if he wasn't paid, he'd have his ways to GET PAID.

With Los Osos in a financial pickle, who on earth would bid here? Turn it over to the county. I'm sure that they could get bids.

Anon said:
"I'm sure subsidized financing could be found for the homeowners - and very likely for the entire system - for such a novel alternative solution to a classic problem. There are a good number of governmental agencies (some with money to burn), hardware providers and alternative solutions folks who would love to see something like this succeed."

I'd like to see what govenment agency has money to burn! This Anon could not be living in the state of California! Or the post-Katrina USA, either!

Mike Green said...

Judge Judy for Empress Of Los Osos!
Not bad, Not bad

Mike Green said...

Publickworks, your comment on the 20 vs 30 year loan had me thinking,
What if you are only calculating that you will only be here 10 years?
Whats the best deal then?
Maybe I'm a dunce when it comes to publick financing.
But I do know a few things about Real Estate financing.
Thanks

Anonymous said...

Mike,

That is an excellent point. If your 70 years old or will move on within 10 years (which is true nowadays for quite a few), you look at it and say, 'hell, I don't give a crap about 30 years from now, if it saves $10/month, even though it costs $40,000 more in payments then it's irrelevant - I'll be 6 feet under then or somewhere else'.

The problem is that with CDOs, you may be locked into staying financially if the equity drops enough.

There is something worse than not being able to pay for a sewer. It's not being able to pay for a sewer, AND not having a way to get out.

Same thing for renting. If you're renting, as much as you might want to help for a solution, you don't want to get your rent jacked up $50-60. They could even look at it as their landlord's problem, (which it is). And worst-case, you can move and it's not your equity down the drain. These CDOs have the potential to see a few landlord's get financially slaughtered.

Financially, the shorter the term with the lowest interest is the way to go. That's why people re-fi at 20/15 years. It may jack it up, but the payoff is sooner and bigger.

Now, the payoff for the sewer could be all the way past 2040 (when it could have been 2027). If you are 35, you'd be 55 and the construction would be paid off - and looking forward to retirement. Now, your seeing age 68 (maybe)and still making those construction payments.

Oh, I know, there's those O&M payments. So what. You could build a supplemental pond 15 years down the road for the rest of Los Osos and off-load some of the treatment there as well.

Anonymous said...

Sewertoons,

You make the comment,

'The other guy was from out of state and looked like if he wasn't paid, he'd have his ways to GET PAID.'

that's a bunch of stereotypical profiling bull.

Lay off the Godfather movies for awhile.

Anonymous said...

Shark,

I have to disagree slightly, sunk costs are sunk costs. You disregard them in future decisions, even though you still have to pay for them.

A new design, as you point out will incur new design costs. Going back to Tri-W will also incur new costs (it'll be litigated again I would wager).

Mike Green said...

Dude, you could sell dog turd hotdogs in front of Von's if you put on your sign;

"It's no wonder, since saying 'it's gotta be cheaper' sells better."

I'm still laughing,
but I don't know why

Mike Green said...

publickworks, all kidding aside,
I thank you.
Many times you have set me straight on things.
I value your input.
Mike Green

Anonymous said...

I'm grateful to live in Los Osos. May our town and its people fair well tomorrow. Justice loves Bravery. Politics loves Bravado. Bureaucracy loves only itself.

Anonymous said...

Mike Green said: "If the CSD right now put up a plan with a gold plated fence and a theater and wine bar on top that would only cost the property owners a thousand dollars a month..."

theater and wine bar?? what a great idea!!!

Let's get on that one right away.

Maybe we can even make the sewer rate payers pay for it so the whole town can enjoy it. I bet we can even get low interest funding to cover that too.

All we need is some "behavior based marketing" to convince the town of what a great idea that is... I wonder who we could get to organize that.... hmmm...

Anonymous said...

Nice anon... and that's how it all started.

Anonymous said...

that box, the one that was once opened released all of the plagues on mankind, whose dowry was that??

Ron said...

Mike said:

Ron hit it right on the head "friends don't let friends design sewer plants"

That is one of my favorite quotes in this entire saga, but I can't take credit for it. I saw it in the comments section of this blog a few months back. Does anyone want to take credit for it? It's great!

'toons, the difference with Ripley is that he is actually qualified to design sewer projects, unlike the Solution Groupers.

Anon said:

"All we need is some "behavior based marketing" to convince the town of what a great idea that is... I wonder who we could get to organize that.... hmmm... "

That is hilarious.

Anonymous said...

Sunk costs only favor TriW? I don't think so. A good amount of the sunk costs could be redirected to another plan if it was the right plan. Buried pipes are buried pipes (I think the currently buried pipes would handle treated grey water just fine, no need to redo any of that). Much of the engineering work done so far could be re-utilized. Much more engineering still needs to be done but if the treatment facility and recharge was simplified the engineering should be cheaper too. Some downtown land was bought and cleared but that isn't necessarily money lost - it still has value. The biggest true losses are lawyer fees, penalties and lost opportunity (cheap loans & time). No way to recover those but those are losses for any plan including TriW.

No, sunk costs don't necessarily favor TriW. Especially if the new sewer was indeed cheaper, faster and most importantly more inclusive and more effective than even TriW. It is possible. Has there been a study for a grey water treatment plant? Why not? The design rules have pretty much changed completely since the earlier WWTF options were considered. I don't think it is necessary but if it is put the grey water treament facility on the TriW site. That's at least an improvement over the current TriW plan.

> But here is the rub,
> Money
> The dang thing costs too much pure and simple, ...

For sure. As I said there is no way this is ever going to be cheap. But we gotta figure out how to make it cheaper. Cheaper means both less expensive and faster to build. What's the cheapest fastest thing we could build? Resident based sewage systems feeding into a grey water treatment facility feeding the current re-charge plans. What's the least expensive thing we could build? The same thing. What's the easiest and quickest thing to get community buy-in? Probably the cheapest & fastest thing we could build. No, the current TriW plans don't meet that criteria - yet. That's still to be proven. And, assuming sanity and logic returns to its process the water board should accept any solution that is fast, effective, comprehensive and has community-buy-in.

>> "I'm sure subsidized financing could be found for the homeowners - and very likely for the entire system - .....
> I'd like to see what govenment agency has money to burn! This Anon could not be living in the state of California!

Didn't I say I was a California Dreamer? OK, I got carried away for a moment there. What ws I thinking? But consider: (1) If the hardware vendors could sell, install and service 17,000+ systems (with more sales in the future as Los Osos grows) don'tcha think the costs might come down? (2) The banks lose if property values sink, sounds like low interest home improvement loans. (ka-chink) (3) And I STILL believe some possibility exists to find subsidized money. No, not the state water board; we burned that bridge. Some alternative models exists along the lines of solar energy rebates and alternative solutions development and investment programs. We're probably not gonna find $300 million but this solution probably doesn't need $300 million.

Ongoing O&M costs needing to be financed are reduced because a good part of it is distributed to the individual homeowners. Remote sensing and home-system management plans discussed in previous blogs have addressed the compliance issues.

And if the grey water treatment facility still ends up downtown I'm in for the theater and wine bar too! Was that community theater or IMAX? Can't we have both?

Enjoy today's theater at the water board inquisition!

Still California Dream'in

Anonymous said...

OK, let me flame myself before somebody else does ....

> (1) If the hardware vendors could sell, install and service 17,000+ systems

Duh! California Dream'n must be smokin some good stuff. We're probably not gonna be installing 17,000 systems anytime soon. At least I hope not. But you get my point. Better for all to buy the systems at Costco.

Mike Green said...

Amen Doggie, Amen

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Mike,
Your quote:
'toons, the difference with Ripley is that he is actually qualified to design sewer projects, unlike the Solution Groupers.

My reply would be - design maybe, but all that he is currently doing is planning stuff and selling people that he can do this. All he has actually BUILT is a water recycling facility on a golf course in San Diego. See the Ripley Pacific Team Proposal for his qualifications.

Maybe more than the Solutions Group, but MUCH less than the prior WWTF builders.

Mike Green said...

"Toons,
That weren't me bucko! Twenty lashes to the comic strip! Argh!

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Oops Mike! 20 lashes for me!! I am sorry, I meant to say Ron!