Pages

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Is That A Lawsuit In Your Pocket Or Are You Just . . . Oh, Wait, It’s Taxpayers Watch, of Course It’s a Lawsuit . . .

County Roundup notice, on Thursday the CSD will consider hiring another law firm to represent four CSD Board Members (three presently seated, one former) in a lawsuit brought by Taxpayers Watch suing the board members personally.

Notes the Tribune, “The lawsuit alleges that the board members paid more than $600,000 in “sham settlement monies to their political supporters” and asks for those board members to be held individually responsible for reimbursing the district’s coffers.” The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. Thursday at the South Bay Community Center . . .

Personally, I don't know where Taxpayers Watch is getting the money for this lawsuit. They tried and failed to get LAFCO to destroy the CSD. LAFCO sent them a ginormous bill for their efforts, a bill that still hasn't been paid off. And I find it odd that Taxpayers Watch's rationale for all this suing is to safeguard the taxpayers' money, when, in reality, these lawsuits are costing the taxpayer a bundle. Well, in for a penny, in for a pound, I guess.

I’ll sure attend that meeting because somebody has to ‘splain something to me. It was ‘splained years ago by attorney McClendon, who was representing the CSD after the recall election. So, let’s hope my memory of it is reasonably correct:

According to McClendon, part of the settlement agreement – a big chunk of it – was made because the previous, recalled board majority – Stan Gufstafson, Gordon Hensley and Richard Le Gros – had voted to file a lawsuit to stop Measure B from getting on the ballot. If memory serves, a local judge agreed with the "old" CSD and blocked the initiative, but the initiative's backers filed an appeal and the appeals court in Ventura set that first judgment aside in, what, 20 minutes, which allowed the election to proceed.

According to McClendon again, the California courts have a long record of really, reeeeeely hammering anyone who tries that – stopping initiatives before the election, no matter how silly the initiatives may be. Again, according to McClendon, the courts feel the vote is “sacred” and so elections must be allowed to go ahead unless the issue is clearly unconstitutional, and then, AFTER the election, folks can file in court to block the implementation of whatever was voted on.

Again, according to McClendon, in filing to block Measure B, the recalled Board members set up the CSD for a real hammering since Measure B was “arguable” as to its constitutionality and "arguable" on its technicalities, so the CSD would have lost on that narrow basis and having lost would face settlement “damages” in an amount mandated by a Judge using a set formula that very likely would have resulted in the CSD getting hammered for 3 -5 times the “regular” damages amount.

In short, the recalled three CSD members set up the community (and the new board) for a difficult decision – continue to defend the suit (that they didn't file but inherited) and lose and face 3-5 times a “regular” damages amount or settle for the smaller amount and consider that you got off lucky. Either way, it was a huge and totally unnecessary financial hit for everyone in the community.

So, here’s the question: Why isn’t somebody suing Stan, Gordon and Richard – personally – for unnecessarily costing the CSD a pile of money? Even more interesting, since these three unnecessarily voted to start work on the Formerly-Known-As-Tri-W project shortly before the recall election, thereby gambling with and (as it turned out) pounding gazillions into the ground, why aren’t they being sued individually for . . . well, wastefully pounding millions of tax dollars into the ground? Or maybe running a “sham” start-up so as to ensure their “political supporters,” i.e. the construction companies who donated to their “No on the Recall” campaign, got a good chunk of money into their pockets before the whole deal was shut down?

In short, maybe what we need here is another group playing Medea to the teeth, (their motto: Let's sauce the goose AND the gander!) by suing Stan, Gordon & Richard -- personally.

Well, surely one of the attorneys for the CSD will need to ‘splain all this to me at Thursday’s meeting.

And Now For The Oh, You Just Knew THAT Was Gonna Happen Department:

Yes, yes, we know. It was just a matter of time. . . .

Rabobank got robbed.

And Finally, A Sad Goodbye

Was downtown over the holiday only to see the huge Going Out Of Business sign in the window of Country Classics in the wonderful Sinsheimer Bros Building on Monterrey St. Spoke with the owner, Janet Baird, and alas, one of my favorite places to just poke around and smell of pot pourri, will be closing. Lagging sales for a variety of reasons, high rent and even higher rent once the earthquake retrofit is finished, interrupted business when the Big Dig for the Copeland Project gets underway across the street, all contributed to her decision to close.

It’s a story that will repeat itself throughout the downtown area as more and more small businesse move or go out of business. How it will ultimately shake out is anyone’s guess. It’s sad to me that Downtown SLOtown may turn into Anywhere USA, a place filled with little more than high end chain stores. Same old, same old.

On the other hand, if wonderful and unique places like County Classics can successfully relocate in another town, well, maybe that’s to the good. No need to go to SLOTown at all, just head for the outlying areas to find the special businesses that make this county such a great place to live.

Meantime, Get Out The Bumpershoots.

And pray for the kind of plentiful but soft rain that will fill the aquifers and lakes. Then get out your brelly and go puddle jumping.

17 comments:

Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ron said...

Richard wrote:

"BECAUSE THE OLD BOARD DID NOT VIOLATE ANY LAW."

[Insert buzzer noise here]

Sure you guys did. A lot of them. However, my personal favorite these days is when the "old board" violated Section 21081.5 of CEQA by adopting an unsupported Statement of Overriding Considerations (I recently reported on that here).

The reason I find that violation of State environmental law so awesome is because not only did it shred the community fabric Los Osos into iddy-biddy pieces, but it also cost California taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million over the past seven years.

Now THAT's how you violate a law. Awesome job! (You know what I find so hilarious about the "old board' now calling themselves "Taxpayers Watch," other than the fact that they stole my idea... SewerWatch / Taxpayer Watch... nice originality, guys), is the thick, thick irony. It's akin to naming the "Patriot Act" the "Patriot Act," when the "Patriot Act" is one of the most unpatriotic laws I've ever seen. Similarly ironic, is that a citizens group named Taxpayer Watch doesn't seem to care a hoot about blowing through gobs of taxpayer money. Great! Orwell would have loved it.)

In fact, when I win the "What Oughta be a Law" contest (a contest I'm going to win as a direct result of YOUR actions, Richard), I'm going to also recommend to Assemblyman Blakeslee, as long as I have his ear, that one other tiny little law be changed, and it's this:

When a government agency pops out a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), the "substantial evidence" that supports the SOC MUST be attached to the document at the time of its adoption.

As it stands today, a weasily government agency, like the 1998 - 2005 LOCSD, can pop out a baseless SOC, and unless it is challenged in court, that baseless SOC will stand, like it did in Los Osos and caused massive, very expensive problems for over seven years, and counting.

Had my 2nd law idea been on the books in 2001, the LOCSD's Statement of Overriding Considerations could not have been adopted because there is absolutely no "substantial evidence" whatsoever that supports it, and Los Osos would have had an out-of-town treatment facility long ago.

And -- and I realize that this will be hard for you to grasp Los Osos -- but when I get these two laws changed; 1) Prohibit weasily officials that are facing recall from setting their own recall election date, and 2) require that the "substantial evidence" that supports a SOC MUST be attached to the document at the time of its adoption -- the entire Los Osos experience will have been worth it, because those two, tiny, little changes to State law will save countless billions of California taxpayer dollars over the upcoming decades, and countless California communities will NOT be ripped apart due to those horrible laws.

Imagine that? California will be a MUCH stronger Democracy DUE to Los Osos... talk about a silver lining.

Great news for the new year!

Mike Green said...

Doggone it Ron!
I was all set to have a good-natured poke at Richard being the poster child for there ought to be a law, when you come out and ruin my thunder.

Shoot, now I'll have to pick on Mark for entertainment.
Not nearly as satisfying.

Shark Inlet said...

The real and very interesting question ... the one that Ron doesn't raise at all ... is whether there is any significant difference between McClendon's Wal*Mart suit and the ones of CCLO and CASE, the suits settled by the recall board based on the advice of McClendon and Blesky.

I would also point out that both BWS and Wildan, who seem to have been the primary beneficiaries of the massive out-flow of monies from the LOCSD accounts, were the companies advising the board during the time that they were enriched.

This all ties into Richard's question ... why does Ann only focus on one aspect of the lawuit and not the other, the missing $1.5M that was scheduled to pay for our fire protection and our bond payment and how this money disappeared without proper board action?

I would think that any muckraker of issues Los Osos (read: Ann and Ron) would concern themselves greatly with the question of how the recall board was able to lose $1.5M ($1000 per resident of our fair town) without even having a public comment period as required by law and as they promised us during their campaigns.

In any case, the recall board was either stupid or dirty beyond belief. It is not yet clear which is the case.

Mike Green said...

Sharkey bubbled:
"without even having a public comment period as required by law and as they promised us during their campaigns."

Brown act violation, thats it.

Well I'm sure that had the recall board followed the letter and intent of that law things would have turned out hunky dory with no bankruptcy and a WWTF already built.
You have got to be kidding, if that is the basis of your angst you need a little readjust.
I'll bet on the "stupid" answer which I will apply equally to all the CSDs.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...

Mike Green said...

-"the letter and intent of that law"

...Now your are talking!

My ears are turning red...

We occasionally stumble over the truth but most of us pick ourselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.
Winston Churchill

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"why does Ann only focus on one aspect of the lawuit and not the other,"

. . . Un, because the County Roundup I'm commenting on had to do with the TPW lawsuit against individual CSD members specifically citing the settlement monies, or as the lawsuit put's it, "sham settlement monies. . ." That's what I was commening on.

At tonight's CSD meeting, maybe I'll get more 'splanations which I can then comment on in a later posting.

The commentor calling himself Richard LeGros is making an assumption that what the post-recall CSD board members did in settling this case was "illegal." (Wierdly, he cites the Grand Jury finding that the settlment was "questionable." I guess "questionable" now becomes "illegal?") He then makes an assumption that HIS Board majority did nothing "illegal," (gee, not even "questionable?") and apparently thinks the SOC they signed off on was "legal." Yet, so far, Legal and Illegal remain to be seen. If somebody filed suit regarding that unsupported SOC, what would be found on "discovery?" and what or how would a judge or jury rule on the matter? For example, do board members have to swear, under penalty of perjury, for example, that the SOC they're are certifing is actually true before they certify it?

Richard's not a lawyer, neither am I, but there's a question to ask. Clearly Ron's asking it.

Churadogs said...

Ron sez:"The reason I find that violation of State environmental law so awesome is because not only did it shred the community fabric Los Osos into iddy-biddy pieces, but it also cost California taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million over the past seven years."

So what -- if any -- is the penalty for signing off on an unsupported SOC? Hand slap? Oops, My bad? Private Citizens have to hire an attorney and go into court? If Taxpayers' Watch is seriously interested in guarding tax payers money, why don't THEY file suit against the previous Board for sigming off on that unsupported SOC? Right now the lawsuit filed seems to be about $600,000. You point out that the SOC fiasco cost $100 million. That's sort of like guarding a mouse hole while behind you the barn door's are open, all the horses have run away and the farmhouse has burned down while you were watching the mousehole. Makes no sense. Unless the point isn't taxpayer watching-out-for, but simply Medean revenge?

Mark said...

Those who govern, having much business on their hands, do not generally like to take the trouble of considering and carrying into execution new projects. The best public measures are therefore seldom adopted from previous wisdom, but forced by the occasion.
Benjamin Franklin

So after years of no results-where is the outrage?
Are the citizens who will ultimately pay the way- unaccountable too?
If they continue that course of action they will pay for that as well.

Ron wrote:

It seems to me that "public scoping for the Los Osos Wastewater project’s Environmental Impact Report" is about 90-percent redundant?

If that's not accurate, please tell me how I'm wrong. Unlike most, I love hearing that, because I learn from it.

Thank you,
Ron
- - -

Hutchinson's response to that excellent question that could potentially save months, if not years of expensive, redundant environmental analysis?

" ."

###

Great work Citizen Ron!
I hope Santa brought you those fireproof gloves for Christmas.

The RECLAMATOR Solution just like septic tanks require no EIR...


Sewertoons said...

Just let the man do the process Ron. If the record does not reflect what you say he will find it. Nice of you to be so very concerned over OUR sewer project though, thanks. You on septic?

12:25 PM, December 11, 2007

The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them away.
Ronald Reagan

Richard LeGros said...

Ann and Ron,

As a then elected board, the CSD board in 2001 had the legal right to craft an SOC stating what they believed to be of issue in Los Osos that would form a basis to shape the WWTP.

I repeat...they had the legal right.

Just becuase you disagree with their decision(s) and the resulting SOC does not make it (or the process) illegal. No court would agree with you that the CEQA process was violated when the CSD composed and adopted the SOC.

The SOC is a tool (and a valid part of the CEQA PROCESS itself)which community governments use to inject into the CEQA process community issues and values that need addressing when pursuing public works.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"So what -- if any -- is the penalty for signing off on an unsupported SOC? Hand slap? "

Yep. Pretty much. In the Sierra Club v. Contra Costa County case, the penalty was that the certification of the EIR was "vacated." So, that's what would happen. The EIR for the Tri-W project would be "vacated," as it should be. Not much of a punishment if you ask me, considering the huge amount of damage, both financially and socially, an unsupported SOC can create.

"If Taxpayers' Watch is seriously interested in guarding tax payers money, why don't THEY file suit against the previous Board for sigming off on that unsupported SOC? "

Excellent question. You know what gets me? Gordon Hensley, self-proclaimed "environmentalist" and "CoastKeeper," was one of the directors that overrode the ENTIRE environmental review process with an illegal, fake SOC. Something tells me our "coast" isn't being "kept" by one Mr. Hensley.

"Private Citizens have to hire an attorney and go into court?"

Again, yep. And that's what sucks. Like I wrote above, a fake SOC will stand unless it is challenged in court. That's why I like my 2nd law idea so much... simply require agencies to attach the "substantial evidence" to the SOC at the time of its adoption. That way everyone could simply look at the documentation, and determine whether the SOC is supported.

Had the 2001 LOCSD been required to do that, 1) they would have been immediately laughed out of office, and 2) Los Osos would have had an out-of-town treatment facility years ago.

Such a simple change, and it will have a "ginormous" (to borrow one of Ann's great words) impact on how projects are built in California.

Mark wrote that I wrote:

"It seems to me that "public scoping for the Los Osos Wastewater project’s Environmental Impact Report" is about 90-percent redundant?"

What a great point. Just don't override the old EIR for no reason whatsoever, and it should be about 90-percent useable. Shouldn't it?

Richard wrote:

"As a then elected board, the CSD board in 2001 had the legal right to craft an SOC..."

Yea, they sure did. However, what they didn't have a legal right to do is just make up, fabricate, a simple three page, completely unsupported Statement of Overriding Considerations that instantly negated the entire environmental review process. THAT's illegal, according to Section 21081.5 of CEQA. Good law.

Now, Richard, if you can tell me, specifically, about the "substantial evidence in the record" that supports the SOC, believe me, I'm all ears.

Regards, SewerWatch

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

I'm confused. Richard says that it was his legal right to sign a SOC for the district he was elected to represent. You tell us the SOC was illegal and fake. Where to you get off using such inflammatory language? The SOC wasn't illegal ... or if it was in any way, you've never told us how it was illegal. The SOC was also not fake or faked in any way. That you think there wasn't sufficient justification to approve the CDP doesn't mean the community didn't feel as the SOC indicated.

Ron, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Your desire to justify your "take" has muddled your ability to think clearly.

Mike Green said...

For your enjoyment: CEQA excerpt.
§ 21081. Necessary findings where environmental impact
report identifies effects
Pursuant to the policy stated in Sections 21002 and 21002.1,
no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an
environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one
or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if
the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following
occur:
(a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings
with respect to each significant effect:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on
the environment.
(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and
should be, adopted by that other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
(b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a
finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency
finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the
significant effects on the environment.

§ 21081.5. Feasibility of mitigation measures or project
alternatives; basis for findings
In making the findings required by paragraph (3) of
subdivision (a) of Section 21081, the public agency shall base its
findings on substantial evidence in the record.

I read it as the SOC was allowed but it was questionable unless that substantial evidence is provided.
And just saying folks want a tot lot and park won't cut the mustard.

Maria M. Kelly said...

I haven't chimed in here in a long time but I would like to respectfully point out that the tot lot and the park were not the only mitigations on the project that provided the reasoning behind the SOC.

You can find more information in the FEIR certified on March 1,2001 and the statement is section V and begins on page 11.

Section VI begins the description of potential environmental effects which are not considered significant and whether or not mitigations were required and if so, what they were.

An EIR is a legal document, and must be certified. So to accuse that it was an illegal document is untrue. Now, if you would like to overturn the SOC, this would need to be done in a court of law but the window for that has passed.

I would encourage anyone who is truly interested, sit down with the FEIR and begin to understand the process that the CEQA review provides.

We can sit in judgment but the reality is, until you read it through and understand how all the pieces fit together, then you are left with a puzzle that is incomplete. I would suggest that there are several people here who don't have a completed puzzle and are focusing on their completed corner and are possibly oblivious that all the edges haven't been done and there are holes in the middle.

CEQA is complex and requires multiple inputs from multiple sources because no one could ever be "the expert". This is one of the reasons why I like the CEQA process, it is inclusive and can only be met with input from multiple sources - again, there is no opportunity for ONE person to be the expert. The only time it does require the signature of one person is in a court of law and the judge sends it on its merry way as solid or an uncompleted puzzle.

Happy New Year and Happy Iowa Caucus Day!
Maria

Maria M. Kelly said...

I would like to clarify that it is page 11 of part II:
Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Consideration & Mitigation Monitoring Program

prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act

Mike Green said...

Maria! Great to hear from you!
And thanks for the information, especially:
"An EIR is a legal document, and must be certified. So to accuse that it was an illegal document is untrue. Now, if you would like to overturn the SOC, this would need to be done in a court of law but the window for that has passed. "

That SOC was rescinded, wasn't it?
Of course I agree that these comments have been an exercise in futility, nothing is going to change whether or not some aspect of previous CSD actions were illegal or just plain dumb.

But hey, what else can we mull over, its the slow season.
I hope Obama kicks butt!