Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Pages
Calhouns Can(n)ons
About the Can(n)ons
Calhoun's Can(n)ons was originally published in 1990 in the (now defunct) Morro Bay, CA, Sun Bulletin, and since 1992 has continued in the various resurrections of the Los Osos, CA. Bay News, Bay Breeze, Bay News, Bay News-Tolosa Press. A few years ago, the Can(n)on was added to the Central Coast NewsMission blogsite. Ann Calhoun lives in Los Osos. You can email her at Churadogs at gmail dot com
To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful.
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Followers
Posts
Calhouns Can(n)ons
Search Calhoun's Can(n)ons
Adopt a Dog or Cat Today
Local Bloggers and Friends
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(179)
-
▼
May
(16)
- Is That A Xerox I See In Your Pocket, Or Are You J...
- Are Those Domain Names In Your Pocket, Or Are You ...
- Calhoun’s Cannons, The Bay News, Morro Bay, CA, fo...
- Options First, Trial Later? Is that County Mummy D...
- Whose Ethics?The following is a formal letter of c...
- Ron Crawford's Yin & Yang over at www.sewerwatch.b...
- I OBJECT!In which Los Osos 45er, Beverly A. De Wit...
- A Dollar Short and Twenty Years Too LateOh, Hello,...
- Calhoun’s Cannons, The Bay News, Morro Bay, CAfor ...
- And now, another Letter (and see UPDATE posted bel...
- Press Release from the LOCSD(for immediate release...
- Call Mr. Shallcross. The Anti-Sewerite Los Osos CS...
- Oh, Please, Pleeezzzeee, Dear God, Stop Them Befor...
- Ron Crawford over at Sewerwatch (www.sewerwatch.bl...
- Letters, we got more letters . . .The following le...
- Letters, We get LettersThe following was sent to t...
-
▼
May
(16)
Central Coast News Radio
Central Coast NewsLinks
CCNM Disclaimer: Calhoun's Can(n)on content copyright wholly owned by Ann Calhoun. Central Coast NewsMission site name and branding images, content and customization copyright © 2005 - 2009. Images courtesy page author, Ann Calhoun, and CCNM editor, Greg McClure; sponsors; and public domain. All writers are responsible for their articles. Permission granted to quote articles herein on a fair use basis, please credit the writer.
7 comments:
Looks like Okun's out - objection by LOCSD to conflict of interest seems to be reason. May 11-12 hearing are postponed. You heard it here first:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/los%20osos/documents/05-05-06RequestforContinuance.pdf
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/los%20osos/documents/NoticeofContinuedProceedings.pdf
Looks like Okun's out - objection by LOCSD to conflict of interest seems to be reason. May 11-12 hearing are postponed. You heard it here first:
www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/los%20osos/documents/05-05-06RequestforContinuance.pdf
www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/los%20osos/documents/NoticeofContinuedProceedings.pdf
So the $6.6 million question now is;
Will the state stay the fines from the ACL hearing?
And even if they do, it doesn't mean fines against the district are not accumulating and the RWQCB cannot issue another ACL complaint against the district.
"PublicWorks said...
So the $6.6 million question now is;
Will the state stay the fines from the ACL hearing?
And even if they do, it doesn't mean fines against the district are not accumulating and the RWQCB cannot issue another ACL complaint against the district.
8:50 AM, May 06, 2006 "
If I'm not mistaken, the ACL case goes to appeal to the SWB, which can make adjustments in the ruling, and then it can go to civil court, where who knows what will happen.
One thing not clear on this latest delay is, what constitutes a "prosecution team?" I mean, at the prosecution table sits Matt Thompson, Lori Okun and Sorrell Marks. Those are all regular "staff" that meets regularly with the Board & etc, thereby crossing that "wall of separation." So are they all out and a new "Mr. Science Guy", plus a new "Ms.Science Personage" (whoever Sorrel is) as well as Mr/Ms. Lawyer Personage will all arrive in Dodge City?
It was clear, at least from the letter, that the issue from the cited case was the bias from advice from the prosectuting attorney, not the whole team.
But the door was left open to allow a whole new prosecution team. I would wager there will be a whole new prosecuting team, because the state won't want to lose or see it dragged out on procedural or process appeals.
I would also wager that the $6.6 million fine will be stayed on appeal to the state for the same reason. Still doesn't get the district off the hook for fines in the long run, which are still accumulating at the rate of $11,000/day and counting.
Oh goody, goody! Maybe now we won't have to pay for a sewer.
Public works said:"It was clear, at least from the letter, that the issue from the cited case was the bias from advice from the prosectuting attorney, not the whole team.
But the door was left open to allow a whole new prosecution team. I would wager there will be a whole new prosecuting team, because the state won't want to lose or see it dragged out on procedural or process appeals."
What I found most interesting from Lori Okun's letter (May 4) was this: "The State Water board has recently established a new Office of Enforcement. One of the Office of Enforcement's functions will be to serve as the prosecutor in complex enforcement action before the regional water quality control boards." (note the plural, board(s).
Clearly, the State Water Board saw a problem all over the state? Else, why would they establish this new Office of Enforcement? Ture, an out of town Enforcer will have to get his basic (mis)information from the on-site team, which will lead to problems in GIGO, but maybe he/she'll have a cooler eye and no vested interests and so be able to bring a better real-life judgement to whatever's being decided? Or is that too much to ask for?
Post a Comment