Calhouns Can(n)ons

Quick, Watson, Hand Me That Flyswatter, There’s A Great Big Irony Flying Around The Room


The Dec 20 Bay News reports, “Richard LeGros, who was one of three members of the CSD Board of Directors ousted in a September of 2005 recall election, was appointed by Peter Anderson of the Office of U.S. Trustee, an arm of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. . . . LeGros is one of three people who were selected to serve on the Creditor’s Committee. He said, ‘the purpose of the committee is to ‘work with the debtor to put together a viable and fair debt reduction plan.’ . . . LeGros said he was appointed to represent Taxpayers Watch, a group that seeks to have a sewer built as soon as possible. Taxpayers Watch failed in its efforts to have the district dissolved despite a very successful petition drive calling for the district’s demise. . . “. and . . . “The CSD was ordered to pay some $39,000 for legal expenses to Taxpayers Watch’s attorney, Kate Neiswender, for being on the losing end of the court battle over Measure B.” . . [Uh, which means he’s an official representative of a debtor while serving on the committee that is overseeing the bankruptcy reorganization so as to pay back debts owed to debtors, like Taxpayers Watch, of which he’s an official representative?] . . .. and . . . “At least one member of the current CSD board is not happy with the selection. ‘I’m outraged,’ said Julie Tacker. ‘I find the irony incredible. His collective decision making prior to the recall election to proceed with the project is part of the ripple effect that causes bankruptcy now.’”

NOT more fully explained was that Mr. LeGros, while still on the recalled Board, voted with the Board majority to start work on the Tri-W project weeks before the recall election, thereby imprudently gambling with millions of the taxpayer’s dollars that the recall would fail. He lost that bet and lost the taxpayers’ millions. Ironically, it was a choice he didn’t have to make. One vote would have held the start of construction until after the vote was taken. Instead, the money was pounded into the ground, one of the precipitating events that helped lead to later insolvency.

NOT mentioned at all was that Mr. LeGros, while still on the recalled Board, voted with the Board majority to file suit to block measure B from ever getting on the ballot, an incredibly ill-advised and fiscally imprudent move that cost the taxpayers a bundle to settle or face an even more horrendous court-mandated bundle had the new CSD not settled, a settlement that was yet another precipitating tip into insolvency.

NOT mentioned either is that Taxpayers Watch, of which Mr. Le Gros is an official representative, still owes the County about $27,000 in County costs for undertaking the dissolution process. [Correction: 12/21,06, Received from Noel King, an email that states, in part: "LAFCO is not a County agency, it is a State agency. When the County initiates business for LAFCO, we have to fund the LAFCO fees and other expenses just like any other agency. So, Mr. LeGros does not owe the County money."] [12/22 addendum: . . . uh, so TPW, of whom Mr. LeGros is the official representative, owes the State, but it still doesn't solve the following question: Will, or can the CSD claim TPW cost them a bundle and should pay up their share of defending against the dissolution action? ] It’s not known how much it also cost the CSD to defend against that process as well. Will the CSD, like [correction: LAFCO, not ] the county, present Taxpayers Watch with their share of that bill? If they do, then Mr. LeGros, as an official representative of Taxpayers Watch, serving as an officially appointed member of this bankruptcy committee, will be making decisions about a debtor in the Measure B case (Taxpayers Watch) and what should also be a target owing the CSD a bundle (again Taxpayers Watch), all while officially representing . . . Taxpayers Watch.

And finally, this:” An architect, LeGros said he will apply for a finance committee that is being created by the county to help with examining alternatives for a new sewer project. ‘I have extensive background in the operation of the CSD and its financial issues,’ he said.”

I’ll say!