Calhouns Can(n)ons

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Wiggle Waggle Walkathon for Woods Humane Society Today

At the Laguna Lake Park off Madonna Road (near LOVR) starting at 9 am. - 2 pm. A Gazillion Dogs of every kind and size! (Even the Mighty Finn McCool will be there at the Greyhound Adoption Center booth!) Fun! Raffle items! Food! Information Booths! Adoption opportunities! Exhibitions!

It's the annual fund-raiser for the Woods Humane Society. So c'mon down. Don't even need a dog to participate and to support the wonderful work Woods does.

29 comments:

Alon Perlman said...: Ann,
I spent a great time at that park a few years ago, with my family and dogly friends. At that time the dog park portion was designated "temporary" county dog park. I havn't checked since. Has the status changed, and if not, what can be done?

My dog does not bite.

(but, if I get one, that statement may no longer be true)

Alon Perlman

Links are like pack leaders, they only work if you follow them.; 2:32 PM, October 18, 2008
Churadogs said...: The grassy area near the restroom on the right side of the park (not near the lake) is an unofficial off-leash dog area. it's not fenced so if you have sight hounds it wouldn't be a good idea. But if your dog responds to call-backs, it's fine. There's poopy bags located on the wall of the rest room and a group of people are regular users. Outside the grassy area your dog needs to be on leash or under direct voice control since farther out are the Alex Madonna cows and nobody wants dogs chasing cows.; 6:54 AM, October 20, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Ann,

I have been out of town on business…much has occurred on this blog since then.

Getting back to one of your posts dated October 10 @ 7:10 AM

To respond clearly to your post of October 10 I will have dissected your post into ‘parts’, of which this is part 1. Please forgive the length of this post.

YOU POSTED:
“Does that include a letter written by Richard to the CSD5 board using the word "reserve" in it? At letter that sure sounded like Richard was putting the Board on notice that something had happened without their knowledge or authorization and he was bringing it to their attention. I found that interesting. Plus, I'm still curious: If Dan Blesky made the payment without the Board's authorization or knowledge (and Richard's letter seems to indicate he's bringing this to their attention, i.e. it's not something they're already aware of?) then why didn't TPW sue Wildan? Was this an administrative error -- not a Board authorized action -- and so does Blesky needs to be sued? Maybe somebody knows why Wildan wasn't in court.”

RESPONSE:
Mr. Swartz is referring to the “Open Letter to the CSD Board” (posted at the end of this post) that I wrote to the recall board on June 28, 2006. The Open Letter is a non-threatening ‘heads up’ to the Recall Board encouraging the Board to investigate the activities of then CSD Interim Manager, Dan Blesky (of Wildan). The Open Letter highlighted that Blesky had spent the majority of the April, 2006 Property Tax proceeds on district expenses OTHER than what the tax proceeds were collected, and legally obligated, to pay for.

The official response to the Open Letter was a Tribune Viewpoint written by CSD board president Lisa Schicker, published July 12, 2006 (also posted below). Schicker’s response did not address any of the serious issues raised in the Open Letter; and instead focusing entirely on accusatory rhetoric dismissing a private citizen’s attempt to help the Board with information regarding the irregular performance of the CSD General Manager along with analysis of the CSD’s financial position.

The CSD5 stood by Schicker’s position for the next 28 MONTHS; during which it became the centerpiece of the CSD5’s court pleadings against the TW lawsuit (i.e. the ‘Blame Hensley Defense’); that is until the Motion for Summary Judgment hearing of Wednesday, October 8, 2008. Last Wednesday Swartz, in his opening statements to Judge LaBarbera, used the Open Letter to declare that it is Blesky who is entirely to blame for the illegal expenditure of the property tax proceeds without the knowledge or directive of the CSD; and that TW concurs with the CSD5 on this point. This is an amazing declaration as the CSD5 now acknowledge that the Open Letter’s analysis is correct.
Overall, what is now certain is that the CSD5’s defense to the TW lawsuit has shifted from the ‘Blame Hensley Defense’ to the ‘Blame Blesky Defense’.

At this point in time the CSD5 has admitted that:
1. The Tax Revenues were not spent as legally mandated.
2. That the improper expenditure of the Tax Revenues is the result of the mismanagement of then GM, Blesky.
3. That as a board they were unaware, and had no knowledge of, of the mismanagement of Blesky.

The CSD5 hope that #3 is the defense against being personally held responsible for per the TW lawsuit. TW has evidence showing that #3 is not true; and that the CSD5 were aware of the behavior of Blesky.

However, a larger question (not to be confused with the ‘core’ question) is at the point in time that Blesky’s mismanagement became obvious, why did the CSD5 NOT PURSUE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AGAINST SAID MISMANAGEMENT IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE TAXPAYER’S INTERESTS?

-R

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Copy of Open letter

Note: This letter was accompanied with a Cash Balance Sheet and a Cash Flow Analysis, which I am unable to post here. For those that want copies, email me at archRBL@aol.com.
An Open Letter to the Honorable LOCSD Board of Directors:
June 28, 2006

I am writing to provide the Board with information regarding the financial status of the LOCSD (see attachments).

This letter is not meant as a criticism of you or your policies; but rather as a criticism directed toward the performance of the LOCSD Interim General Manager. I truly believe that the LOCSD Interim General Manager has not provided you with realistic financial data or District status reports. Without correct data your ability to realize effective LOCSD policy decisions is impaired.

The information attached has been gathered from numerous LOCSD documents. The LOCSD Account Balances of June 23, 2006 came directly from the account balance report issued by the LOCSD Interim ASM. The expenses associated with the "extraordinary costs" have been gleaned from LOCSD documents gathered through Public Records Requests, depositions, and court-filed statements made by LOCSD employees. My past experience serving on the LOCSD Board and as chair of the LOCSD Finance Committee has given me a thorough understanding of the revenues and expenses associated with operating the LOCSD. In short, the information provided is as accurate as I can make it.

I suspect that the Interim General Manager has not provided you with financial information to verify, deny or correct the financial numbers of my cash flow analysis . The inability of the Interim General Manager to provide basic financial data to the LOCSD Board is an inexcusable failure on his part towards serving you and the community of Los Osos.

Concerning the attachments:

The Cash Balances as of June 23, 2006 document lists all LOCSD accounts and their balances, along with a general description of each account. The balances shown in the account balance sheets are undeniable fact. The color system used is explained by the little red tags to the upper right of each item identified; just place your cursor over a tag to reveal the contents.

The Cash Flow Analysis 1aa too has all critical revenues or expenses red-tagged for clarity. The information in the tags is as accurate as I could make them based upon information available as of June 27, 2006. The spread sheet is color-coded for clarity. Please refer to the Color Code Index. Also, at the bottom left hand corner of the Excel screen, click on the "Cash Flow Chart" tab to see a graphical representation of the spread sheet analysis.

In making the Cash Flow Analysis, I made several conservative assumptions:

1. That the LOCSD would not transfer money from other secured or unsecured accounts into the Operations Account #1012 after June 5, 2006.
2. That the LOCSD had received all April 10 Property Tax Revenues, Special Taxes and Bond Assessment proceeds from The County of San Luis Obispo by June 1, 2006
3. That Water Revenues were of equal size each month. I know this is not the case, as winter months have a lower revenue stream compared to summer months. I have taken the liberty to
take the year’s expected water revenue and divided it by 12 months, resulting in the $95,000/month revenue.
4. As the Solid Waste revenues generated by the franchise fee is paid yearly, I have taken the liberty to divide expected revenue by 12 months, resulting in the $6,200/month revenue.

The cash flow analysis shows that the LOCSD is weeks away from bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy is a certainty.
Bankruptcy is unavoidable.

Even if you lower all expenditures drastically, appoint a volunteer management committee to replace paid LOCSD administrative staff, not honor prior invoices, terminate the services of all unessential consultants, raise additional water and solid waste revenues, and/or transfer all remaining unrestricted and restricted account funds into the Operations Account #1012 to pay invoices, bankruptcy will only be postponed to late August, 2006. Time spent delaying bankruptcy will result in certain depletion of the community’s limited financial assets.

The decision as to when the LOCSD files for bankruptcy protection is the Board’s to make.

As distressing as the impending bankruptcy will be, the cash flow analysis also portends that the LOCSD will default on the Assessment Bond Interest payment on September 1, 2006, will not have sufficient funds to pay the CDF Fire Fee during October, 2006 and will probably not have sufficient funds to pay the State I-Bank interest payment. The community should be made aware of the certainty that the Assessment Bond will default; and the effects of the default on the property owners. The community should be made aware of the certainty of the LOCSD’s inability to pay the CDF Fire Fee and of the ramifications of failing to make the payment. The community should be made aware of the possible default on the I-Bank loan; and the effects of the default on the property owners.

The decision of how the community is informed regarding these issues is the Board’s to make.

The analysis infers a specific lapse of the fiduciary duty by the Interim General Manager regarding his responsibility to manage LOCSD finances, as follows;

On April 10, 2006, The County of San Luis Obispo collected approximately $1,730,000 in property taxes, special taxes and assessment bond interest on behalf of the LOCSD. The funds collected included funds required to pay the $760,000 CDF Fire Fee (due April 17, 2006) and funds to pay the $712,000 Assessment Bond interest payment (Due September 1, 2006). The funds collected were given by the County to the LOCSD. All funds were exclusively deposited in the LOCSD Operations Account #1012 by June 1, 2006. No funds were deposited in any other LOCSD account.

The CDF Fire Fee is paid exclusively with property tax and special fire tax revenues. However, the June 6, 2006 payment of the CDF Fire Fee occurred only after funds were transferred from the LAIF Account #1011 into account #1012. It is documented fact (shown on the LAIF fund transfer receipt dated June 5, 2006) that the transfer occurred for the express purpose to pay the CDF Fire Fee. The LAIF account did not house any property tax revenues. The LAIF account exclusively contained all the LOCSD’s reserves of the Fire, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage, Vista del Oro, Cabrillo Estates, and Bayview Height funds. In short, the Interim General manage did not use property tax proceeds, but rather the LOCSD reserves, to pay the CDF Fire Fee. With this action, the Interim General Manager inappropriately spent the majority the LOCSD’s reserves.

I respectfully request that the LOCSD look into the performance of the Interim General Manager as he is a hired consultant to the Board. In the interest of public awareness and transparency of government, I ask that the Interim General Manager make a formal presentation to the LOCSD Board of Directors at an open public meeting to explain his actions. Specifically explained would be what happened to the LOCSD’s property tax funds collected to pay for the CDF Fire Fee and the Assessment Bond Interest payment?

Sincerely,

Richard B. LeGros
Director LOCSD 2002-2005
Chair, LOCSD Finance Committee
Chair, LOCSD Parks Committee
Chair, LOCSD Wastewater Committee
Chair, LOCSD Water Operations Committee
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Viewpoint Response by CSD President Lisa Schicker
BLAME LOS OSOS' CASH PROBLEMS ON OLD BOARD
REBUTTAL TO FORMER CSD DIRECTOR RICHARD LEGROS
Published: Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Thank you for your letter (Open letter to the Los Osos CSD board: Why Los Osos is on a fast-track to bankruptcy, July 5).
Unfortunately for all of us, and despite my repeated pleadings, no cash analysis of any type was ever done during 2005.
This was before the board that you were part of decided on a 3-2 vote to accept construction bids 46 percent to 60 percent above engineers' estimates and push forward with construction of the most expensive per-capita sewer project in the country, 20 days before a recall election that was set at the latest possible date and setting into motion almost every one of the current cash problems and legal liabilities that exist for the people of Los Osos.
You and I both know that Darrin Polhemus from the state Water Resources Control Board's revolving loan fund program said that the project could have been amended before we went to construction and that we had until December 2005 to do it.
This evidence was presented at the hearings on the proposed water board fines -- on video tape.
Why would you have ever approved such a devastating financial scheme upon your community?
It appears that you have been extremely busy now, producing, emailing and publishing an array of detailed analyses and spreadsheets without attending one Los Osos Community Services District board meeting.
But as co-chairman of the district's Finance Committee in 2005, when repeatedly asked for cash flow analyses, we were all denied such reports.
I would also ask you again to please review last year's audit, which indicated a $2 million shortfall during your watch, and an auditor's management letter that pointed out numerous problems with the way your board was managing the finances of the district even prior to the wastewater fiasco and the cascade of poor management decisions made in a series of 3-2 votes during that year.
I would also advise that these kind of analyses and spreadsheets are not based on any reality and do damage to your fellow citizens when you send them out and print them and then the papers publish them.
I have not observed your attendance at any district board business meeting or committee meeting and suggest that if you want to get a taste of reality, please start showing up.
This working behind the scenes is not helping your community, nor does it help when you post it on a blog or send it to government agencies involved with the proposed sewer and Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee's office.
It only muddies the waters and confuses the issues further. These analyses are also undermining any attempts that Blakeslee and the various agencies are making on behalf of the people of Los Osos.
You are cordially invited to participate in all services district activities, and I urge you to please help the community.
Spreading this kind of information, which is not based in truth, but in speculation in your mind, is not helping anyone.
I hope to see you soon at a committee or board meeting. Thank you, Richard.

• Lisa Schicker is president of the Los Osos Community Services District Board of Directors.; 11:30 AM, October 20, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Richard,

Sounds like you are saying that the board most likely knew exactly what was going on with the money but that you were writing the letter in a polite fashion ... to suggest in a non-threatening way ... that some oversight of Blesky would be in order.

That Richard could piece together an approximate balance sheet even though on the outside and that Dan was retained well past the start of the bankruptcy shows four things.
1 - Richard was right about there being no money (for whatever reason).
2 - The LOCSD board during the months before the bankruptcy didn't provide the public the sort of details necessary for substantive public comment on any question related to money
3 - The LOCSD board could have easily provided those details but chose not to
4 - The LOCSD board chose to stand behind an individual that they knew was making a mess of things.

Now to the $64,000 (well, more like in the millions) question ... when Lisa wrote her (off topic) reply to Richard, why did she essentially say that Richard lied? The moment the bankruptcy was filed we all knew that the money disappeared. That it has taken two additional years for the lawyers representing the board at that time are now saying that Dan is to blame (even in part) is funny ... if he was to blame, the board at the time was to blame as well. Unless there is evidence that Dan lied to the board about these matters, they have a problem.; 12:24 PM, October 20, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Well, to me it is clear why the Board chose not to go after Bleskey - and why Lisa lied. The Board was fully aware as to what he was doing, maybe they directed him, privately, to do this -- so to accuse him would be to accusing themselves - They are only pulling out the "Blame Bleskey" defense because:

1. They have nothing else to pull out of their hat.
2. Bleskey has rejoined the Navy or something and is out of the country and unaware of what is going on.; 1:59 PM, October 20, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: The absurdity of Lisa telling Richard he should show up at meetings is laughable. When Bruce Gibson first started holding office hours in LO - a year and a half ago maybe? -- Richard DID come to a meeting and was practically spit on by Lisa supporters. No telling what would have happened had he gone to one of those meetings.

It's so funny how Lisa has changed, too - now she wants you to come up to her privately and talk to her about controversial issues, rather than address the topic at Public Comment.; 2:06 PM, October 20, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Hi Ann

Regarding your post of October 10 @ 7:10 AM post: PART 2

YOU WROTE:
“As for being unprepared for trial, if I'm not mistaken, part of why they couldn't go forward is that TPW's attorney has not given them the info they've repeatedly requested. Judge LaBarbara made it clear TPW's Attorney couldn't just dump a big pile of papers in their lap and say, THERE! So they were ordered to meet and confer and whatever documents TPW is refusing to turn over, must be individually "splained" (defended) to the judge. That'll take time. I also found it interesting that apparently written documents, including Richard's letter and the audit reports and other documents pointed one way regarding the LIAFF account, while so far (apparently) only testimony made by Bruce Buel points another way,(despite months available to TPW to make public records requests to turn up any documents supporting Buel's testimony) so it'll be interesting to see at trial which testimony carries more weight or which evidence has more credibility. I'm also going to be intrested, at trial, to see where "due care" "due dilligence" "prudence," etc. falls.”

RESPONSE:
TW HAS provided the relevant documents that the CSD5 have requested. The fact that the CSD5 are not ready for trial is that they have been dragging their feet to get ready for trial. They have not yet performed any depositions; and have been filing nonsensical court documents such as the attempted and denied Cross Complaint and objection papers to the TW Motion to Quash (which was upheld in favor of TW).

As for the contents of the LAIF account, the declarations of Bruce Buel and two declarations of Pat McClenahan, along with the 2005-2006 audit of Mr. Crosby, supports the TW contention that the LAIF in June of 2006 held only 2002 bond assessment proceeds….not the fire and water reserves which I mistakenly assigned to the LAIF in the Open Letter. To spend bond assessment proceeds that were collected to build the WWTF on fire fees is an illegal use of said funds.

-R; 9:47 AM, October 21, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Hi Ann

Regarding your post of October 10 @ 7:10 AM post: PART 3

YOU WROTE:
“Also, La Barbera did note that it doesn't matter how unclean the previous CSD's hands were,(his words) it doesn't matter what the pre-recall board did to set up the destruction of the post recall CSD (La Barbara clearly gets it, at least), none of that matters at this point (summary judgement). That can be argued at trial and hope it clarifies the mitigating circumstances. I also found it funny that TPW's attorney stated that he objected to the judge granting a summary dismissal at this point "because this case goes far, far beyond facts."

RESPONSE:
Judge LaBarbera was referring to the GENERAL LEGAL DOCTRINE of “UNCLEAN HANDS”; which was the basis of the CSD5’s attorneys (Mr. Swartz) argument in the CSD5’s opposition papers to the TW Motion to Quash. In the opposition papers Swartz was arguing the ‘Blame Hensley Defense’ that prior boards had “UNCLEAN HANDS” that forced the CSD5’s illegal actions.

Judge LaBarbera didn’t agree with Swartz’s “UNCLEAN HANDS” argument and denied the “UNCLEAN HANDS” argument as being relevant to the TW lawsuit or court proceedings. Further, Judge LaBarbera will not allow any use of the “Blame Hensley Defense” or the “UNCLEAN HANDS” arguments by the CSD5 in future court papers or court proceedings (i.e. the trial). So Ann, you are very mistaken when you wrote “That can be argued at trial and hope it clarifies the mitigating circumstances” is simply incorrect. Those issues are officially moot to the court. ‘Mitigating circumstances’ do not exist that will legally forgive the CSD5’s violating the law.

Additionally, Judge LaBarbera never said or indicated that the ‘pre-recall board’ had “UNCLEAN HANDS”; hence your comment that “La Barbara clearly gets it, at least” is a gross reporting error on your part. If you are going to report on the court proceedings, at least attempt to understand what the Judge was saying; and understand the definition of the doctrine of “UNCLEAN HANDS”.

DEFINITION OF UNCLEAN HANDS
unclean hands n. a legal doctrine which is a defense to a complaint, which states that a party who is asking for a judgment cannot have the help of the court if he/she has done anything unethical in relation to the subject of the lawsuit. Thus, if a defendant can show the plaintiff had "unclean hands," the plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed or the plaintiff will be denied judgment. Unclean hands is a common "affirmative defense" pleaded by defendants, which must be proved by the defendant. Example: Hank Hardnose sues Grace Goodenough for breach of contract for failure to pay the full amount for construction of an addition to her house which she admits. The court denies any relief to Hardnose when Goodenough proves that Hardnose had shown her faked estimates from subcontractors to justify his original bid to Goodenough. (See: affirmative defense)

-R; 10:24 AM, October 21, 2008
Churadogs said...: I'm still stuck with wondering why TPW didn't sue Blesky? It also is clear that apparently the pre-recall CSD finances were in a mess, so the question arises, was Blesky able to make sense of it? As for anyone believing Richard's letter, is it possible the post recall board had good reason to view Richard with extreme skepticism? Is that a distinct possibility? As for La Barbera not "getting it" regarding the unclean hands, Oh, he got it all right, he just noted that it wasn't relevant. So we're still back on square one. Why didn't TPW sue Dan Bleskey and/or WilDan? Maybe the trial will make that clear?; 7:55 AM, October 22, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Ann,

Because TPW doesn't have a contractual relationship with Willdan or Blesky personally, they cannot sue him.

Please remember also that "the buck stops here" with the board. If, for whatever reason, the board had a renegade employee (which I doubt ... I think that Dan provided exactly the services they wanted ... or else they would have fired him right after finding out about his financial mismanagement), they are the ones responsible for the problem ... and fixing it.

Even if the board didn't trust Richard at all ... the question remains ... did they have any obligation to read his letter and investigate his charges against Dan. I think so. Because they have an obligation to govern the district according to the laws of the land, they should have been more careful in their oversight of him in the first place. When a question of financial mismanagement comes up, a board should be even more careful. Certainly the appropriate response isn't to write a public response saying "you're lying so I don't have to listen".; 9:06 AM, October 22, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Ann,

To make it very clear so that you even you will understand.....

1. TW is LEGALLY PREVENTED from suing WILDAN/BLESKY as TW does NOT HAVE LEGAL STANDING OR BASIS to do so.
It is ONLY the LOCSD that has legal standing to file a malpractice lawsuit against Wildan as the LOCSD had the contract with Wildan to provide the management services of Mr. Blesky to the LOCSD.
Clear enough for Ya?

2. The Pre-recall finances were in good shape. The CSD's own financial records prove so.
Up to the recall, the LOCSD was solvent, on budget, had reserves, money in the bank, and a commitment from the State for a $139M loan to build the WWTF (which upon completion would have generated revenue for the LOCSD).

For you to say that the CSD finances were in a 'mess' just shows your ignorance.

3. Blesky was not able to 'make sense' of the CSD financial condition because he (as he opined in his deposition)did not have the financial training to do so....not because the CSD finances were in a 'mess'; and despite attempts by CSD staff to educate him on the district's finances; and that his actions were improper.

3. As for 'extreme skepticism' by the CSD5 about my Open Letter, the fact that they filed for bankruptcy within 5 weeks of its publication should have erased such doubts.
Further, as elected officials they showed extremely bad judgment for not even assessing the letter's claims as they were from a knowledgeable source.
Finally, at some point in time the CSD5 understood that the Open Letter's analysis was correct and that Blesky had severely damaged the LOCSD...yet the CSD5 failed to act to undo the damage to the LOCSD and the taxpayer. This failure on their part makes them liable for the damages caused by Blesky's incompetence; and shows how incompetent the CSD5 are themselves.

4. Judge LaBarbera clearly sees that the CSD's 'unclean hands' defense is doo-doo; and he is not buying what they are trying to sell. In fact, he did more than dismissed that defense as 'merely not relevant'.....he was really pissed at Swartz for pressing him on that issue at all; and he made it very clear that he will be very very pissed if the CSD5 attempts to raise it again in future court proceedings. Your spin is, frankly, plain wrong.

Ann, you're riding a rotting dead horse of a CSD board....so the smell must really be getting to Ya. Time for you to dismount, bury that horse and take a bath.

-R; 9:12 AM, October 22, 2008
GetRealOsos said...: Ann,

Funny how SharkInlet scolded me for posting the same post on a couple of threads, yet he sure doesn't mind Richard LeGros doing it. He says nothing.

He also wants Ron to apologize, me to apologize, etc. yet he won't apologize for being a big hypocrite.

As far as TW's suit, I've said before, this is America where anyone can sue anyone. TW should and could have sued Wildan and BWS if they knew something was very wrong. Hey, Richard or Gordon could have spoken at public comment on the issue as soon as they were aware of the problem.

Ron is right. Gordon and Richard wanted to do harm to the Lisa and Julie because they lost and couldn't handle it. They've been full of hate ever since.

On another note, if this CSD is not about the sewer anymore (like the Dreamers want us to think) and it's all about financial matters, Karen would be the perfect candidate. The Tribune had no intention of endorsing Karen because they are the PR rag for the County.

Did the Trib ever do ONE STORY on the CDO's? Didn't the Trib print false costs (for homeowners) on the 218? That about says everything about the Trib.

And Maria, she puts up a post to answer why she said the yes 218 vote pretty much insured the County look at options/sites and she took it down, never to been seen again. She says she wants people to talk to her and ask questions, yet she won't answer simple questions I've asked her here on your blog.

P.S. I say, "Rein, Rein, go away"_
He won't, because this is his job -- to promote all Dreamer agendas -- Tri-W/Maria and Marshall etc.

At least now that he's been exposed we all know who and what he's all about. He's not too impressive and he's lost all credibility.; 5:07 PM, October 22, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: getreal,

Do you not read? How can you say, "TW should and could have sued Wildan and BWS if they knew something was very wrong," when it was patiently explained a few lines above:
"TW is LEGALLY PREVENTED from suing WILDAN/BLESKY as TW does NOT HAVE LEGAL STANDING OR BASIS to do so."

AND

"Because TPW doesn't have a contractual relationship with Willdan or Blesky personally, they cannot sue him."

If you read more you might see the truth in other areas as well.; 5:17 PM, October 22, 2008
GetRealOsos said...: Sewertoons,

Yes, I read what Richard wrote, but I still believe that as a citizens group they could have sued.

Why don't you answer why Richard nor Gordon got up at any CSD meeting at public comment to say something right away?

Why didn't they do that?

P.S. Don't you talk about truth. You don't know truth, you don't want to know the truth. You've refused to listen to experts and follow the County. Maria works for the County. Whatever they want. Paavo is her boss. Both you and she will benefit at the cost of hundreds of people. Agendas Lynette. Agendas.; 6:01 PM, October 22, 2008
Unknown said...: getrealosos... the door is wide open for you to proceed with your suit of Blesky and or Willdan... why don't you contact Shawna and begin...?????; 6:19 PM, October 22, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: getreal, Richard couldn't even get out of a Bruce Gibson meeting without anger tossed at him. What makes you think that either Gordon or Richard wouldn't have risked bodily injury from the guys who screamed at even my face after a CSD meeting? You can see Lisa's response in the Viewpoint. Why would this news at a meeting be accepted any differeently than Richard's letter?

Maria does NOT work for the County.

The only "experts" I've seen from your side are salesmen. What's their agenda - or can't you guess?

We'll see what Dr. T. has to say.; 7:51 PM, October 22, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: GetReal,

I don't remember scolding you for copying the same post in more than one place ... I remember commenting on Howie doing this but not you. If you would care to point out where I scolded you I would appreciate it.

I think that people who make false statements ought to apologize. If Ron tells people that Maria was in favor of dissolution and if she was not, he owes her an apology.

As for me asking you to apologize, again, I forget where I did that. Perhaps you could point out where I may have done that.

Me, on the other hand ... I don't believe I owe anyone an apology. I corrected my mistaken attribution of Lisa's statement to her deposition. I apologized for this as well.

If you believe I have another reason to apologize, please explain with specifics. To generally ask a person to apologize for having a different opinion than you do is ... well ... just plain silly.

As for your belief that TW could sue Willdan ... you appear painfully unaware of how the legal system work. Yes, anyone can sue anyone for anything ... but unless there is a basis for the suit, it is pointless to pursue ... any judge would bounce such a suit out the door because the only entity with the right to sue Willdan for hosing up Los Osos is the LOCSD.

Enjoy your evening....; 8:59 PM, October 22, 2008
GetRealOsos said...: Sewertoons:

So you're saying that Richard and/or Gordon couldn't attend a CSD meeting to voice their objections to Wildan because they were afraid??????

What cowards!!!!

They had to sue because they were afraid of hard words from a couple of people?

What cowards!!!; 9:00 PM, October 22, 2008
GetRealOsos said...: Shark,

You did object to me posting in more than one thread. You said it was "frowned upon".

I will not go back and look up anything. You apparently have more time on your hands (since you do this often) than I do. (I never understood that when you have a family) ... clearly this is how you get away with your shit. People don't want or care to investigate your and anyone's previous posts from God knows when.

And what's the excuse from you for Richard and Gordon not speaking up at any CSD meeting, but rather lawsuits instead. Lynette indicates they are afraid of being attacked. What have you got on that one?; 9:06 PM, October 22, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: GetReal,

Now I remember. I hardly think that letting you know the standard approach to conversations is "scolding" others. I apologize if you felt I was scolding you.

As to Richard's choices ... you should ask him about those things. I have no idea why he doesn't show up ... but the theory Toons puts out there makes good sense to me.

Tell you what ... if Richard gets in the habit of putting his comments up multiple times ... I will remind him.

Again, enjoy your evening ...; 10:05 PM, October 22, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: getreal, your penchant for making things up is getting annoying. Please re-read what I wrote. Ask Gordon or Richard if you want to know why they didn't show up.

My opinion - there would have been no point to showing up. The result would have been shouting and anger, and the noise from the back of the room - which neither Lisa nor Chuck has much luck in controlling - would have been deafening.

Lisa couldn't even "hear" what was being said from a very polite letter without getting mad and missing the point entirely. Had Richard been at the podium in front of her - she wouldn't have heard anything at all.; 10:27 PM, October 22, 2008
Unknown said...: Just a late evening thought for Ann and getrealosos.... Why hasn't PZLDF sued Willdan....????

Of course that might be seen as the same as the CSD sueing since PZLDF is not paying their 75% of the last lawsuit... Thanks Ann for stiffing the community for your frivilous lawsuit... Thanks Gail for skipping town and not paying your share... and poor Julie can't possibly pay with her new "housing" situation... Thanks a bunch PZLDF, you've sure set the State Water Boards straight... and a final thanks to the LOCSD for being such wonderful financial managers and letting the community know that the PZLDF has not paid their portion of the legal bill...!!!!; 11:42 PM, October 22, 2008
Churadogs said...: richard sez:". TW is LEGALLY PREVENTED from suing WILDAN/BLESKY as TW does NOT HAVE LEGAL STANDING OR BASIS to do so.
It is ONLY the LOCSD that has legal standing to file a malpractice lawsuit against Wildan as the LOCSD had the contract with Wildan to provide the management services of Mr. Blesky to the LOCSD.
"

Why didn't TPW sue the CSD as an entity? Is that question clear enough for ya? Were you prevented from doing that -- legally? Did you figure the only way to get at the CSD was to sue the members individually? This still isn't clear to me.

RIchard also sez:"yet the CSD5 failed to act to undo the damage to the LOCSD and the taxpayer. This failure on their part makes them liable for the damages caused by Blesky's incompetence; and shows how incompetent the CSD5 are themselves."

You state, the CSD5 failed to act. The only way the CSD5 could act or "fail to act" is AS A BOARD, since no individual board member has any power to unilaterally "act" on anything. So that's why I keep asking, Why didn't TPW sue the CSD BOARD, as a Board. Why the individual, personal suit?; 8:22 AM, October 23, 2008
Osos Change said...: Ann, the answer is simple:

Vengeance and abuse of process.; 9:44 AM, October 23, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Ann,

The CSD5 have ADMITTED in their court documents that IT IS A FACT that $1.4 MILLION of YOUR Tax Dollars were improperly spent by Blesky / Wildan.

Admitted ,Ann! No grey area here.

Your question should b:

'WHY HAS THE CSD BOARD NOT SUED WILDAN TO RECOVER THE $1.4 MILLION ILLEGALLY SPENT?'

The CSD5 have a responsibility to protect YOU, the TAXPAYER from financial harm caused by illegal acts of any LOCSD consultant. The fact that the CSD5 acknowledge the theft by Wildan, and did nothing to correct it, makes the CSD5 an accomplice to the illegal act AND directly liable to reimburse the LOCSD for the stolden tax money.
+++++++

Regarding why TW, PLZDF, CCLO,CASE,LOTA, or YOU have not sued Wildan .......

NO PRIVATE CITIZEN OR CITIZENS GROUPS HAVE THE LEGAL BASIS OR STANDING TO SUE WILDAN FOR THE DAMAGES WILDAN HAVE CAUSED
TO THE LOCSD.

PERIOD!

SUCH A LAWSUIT CAN ONLY BE LITIGATED BY THE LOCSD; AS WILDAN HAS CONTRACTURAL OBLIGATIONS TO PROTECT AND HOLD HARMLESS THE LOCSD FOR ACTIONS THAT HARMED THE LOCSD.
++++++++

As for liability insurance, the spending of YOUR property taxes was not an 'error or ommission'. Wildan / Blesky KNOWINGLY violated the law; later the CSD5 found out about his illegal actions YET MADE THE DECISION TO DO NOTHING!

In short, liability insurance does not cover, defend or indemnify illegal acts.
+++++++++

As for why TW did not sue the CSD instead if the CSD5, the answer is obviouos....THE CSD ITSELF IS THE VICTIM OF A CRIME.

How can you sue the VICTIM to reimburse the VICTIM the money robbed from the VICTIM by others (Wildan / Blesky)?

-R; 10:33 AM, October 23, 2008
Osos Change said...: Wouldn't it be funny if Richard LeGros was sued for public waste?

He owes more to the district than what his lawsuit is asking for in damages.

I'm calling a lawyer.; 2:00 PM, October 23, 2008
GetRealOsos said...: Sewertoon,

You say, "Had Richard been at the podium in front of her - she (Lisa) wouldn't have heard anything at all..."

My point here Sewertoons is that Richard or Gordon could have gone to a meeting and spoken before suing. The 'PUBLIC' had the right to know. That would have been an easy thing to do.

It sure makes it look more like revenge since neither Richard or Gordon spoke out publicly FIRST.

Either they were cowards or it was entirely revenge on their part, it's as simple as that!; 3:55 PM, October 23, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: GetReal,

Aren't you forgetting that Richard's open letter to the LOCSD board warned of exactly the problem which the board then refused to address which they are now being sued over?

While there might very well be some revenge motivation, there most definitely was warning given to the LOCSD board and to the public. It was only after a period of inaction that the public waste lawsuit was filed.; 4:09 PM, October 23, 2008
Mark said...: Retest the test wells.
Where is that Gravity Tech Memo?; 5:25 PM, October 24, 2008

Pages

Saturday, October 18, 2008

29 comments: