Tuesday, July 04, 2006
CORRECTION: In my 6/26 entry, I had written, "My favorite is the Pre-Recall Los Osos Taxpayers Association case which, among other things, complains about the money being spent by the CSD on lawyers and does so by suing the CSD so they have to spend money on . . . lawyers." Oops, wrong. The suers suing the CSD in that case was Taxpayers Watch, not LOTA. Sorry. Too many groups with similar names. Maybe we now need to start selling programs just to keep the players straight.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Ann,
Your wrote: "My favorite is the Pre-Recall Los Osos Taxpayers Association case....... was Taxpayers Watch, not LOTA. Sorry."
Correction: Taxpayers watch did not exist until October, 2006; which is after the recall (POST-recall)
Anon said:"Correction: Taxpayers watch did not exist until October, 2006; which is after the recall (POST-recall)"
Perhaps I should have said, "So close to post-recall to be virtually near pre-recall." Since it takes some time to figure out a strategy, find a lawyers, form a group to sign and file papers etc., then the Taxpayers Watch "somebody(s)" was(were) sure ready to roll before that election was even certified. So is it a difference without a distinction, perhaps?
But Ann,
Wasn't a key argument of the CSD that TW waited too long to file their Measure B suit?
Sorry ... my thought was incomplete ... redo:
But Ann,
Wasn't a key argument of the CSD that TW waited too long to file their Measure B suit and wasn't the Measure B suit filed before the public waste lawsuit?
What's the point here? Either your memory or mine is incorrect.
Even if your memory about the timing is correct, which I doubt because the lawsuit followed the settlements with CASE and CCLO (but not LOTA ... why?), the issue of the suit was about whether the CSD could reasonably pay CCLO and CASE lawyers for pro bono work done before the election.
To me it seems pretty clear that McClendon's argument was based on the assumption that the rulings on the Measure B lawsuit and the CCLO lawsuits against the (previous) board would have been overturned on appeal. This I doubt. In fact, when you consider Measure B, it seems pretty darn wierd that BWS got paid for that work at all. They lost so soundly that to make the argument that "if they had won the CSD would have been out even more" is simply laughable. In other words, the board chose to give money to Biggs which she would not have received had the election come out differently. This is not a matter of who was right or of legal technicalities.
Remember people there were 5 lawsuits settled for the $488K. BWS had cases against the District that the Board agreed with their position, to not settle would be a waste of taxpayers money, to continue to fight what the board believed in would have bene imprudent, so they settled. big deal! Are we still thinking that is alot of money? Come on! We've got millions spent on Buelshit, all for the wrong project, more time wasted and the war goes on...put it in perspective, the Threee Stooges started the project before they had clear commnity direction from the recall vote, they gambled with all our lives and lost, and now there's a mess no one would have imagined, not ever.
Post a Comment