PZLDF Attorney Dismisses Sorta Kinda (Where’s Roger?) ! Party Time! Paavo Speaks! Gotta Lobby! And Hats Off!
First, from a press release from the PZLDF:
PROHIBITION ZONE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND DISMISSES LAWSUIT, BUT BRIGGS AVAILABILITY FOR QUESTIONS WILL REMAIN OPEN TO CHALLENGE.
As a cost saving measure PZLDF has decided to dismiss, without prejudice, their Petition for Writ of Mandamus which was amended and filed on November 28, 2006.
The basis for the petition, filed by Alan Martyn, William Moylan, Beverly Dewitt-Moylan, Antoinette Payne, Bruce Payne, Rhian Gulassa, and Timothy L. Rochte, sought to have hearings continued until Regional Water Board Executive, Roger Briggs, could appear for a questioning.
Roger Briggs left on October 6, 2006 for a six month sabbatical, and although subpoenaed in advance did not appear for their deposition. Water Board chairman, Jeffery Young quashed the subpoena October 18. Although the request was first made to Regional Water Board staff in August, the lack of Mr. Briggs testimony and prosecution team documents made proper preparation for hearings impossible.
The Regional Water Board recognized Roger Briggs would be unavailable for either disposition or appearance at the quasi-trials if hearings did not proceed as promised after the April 28 hearing, but for reasons unexplained, Jeffery Young continued and then delayed the hearings for over 9 months, until after Briggs’ departure.
The lawsuit asked the court to vacate all orders requiring the hearings until after the completion of the deposition of Roger Briggs or to set aside the decision that quashed the subpoena and to produce Roger Briggs. Additionally defendants were not properly noticed and served chairman’s orders throughout the year long proceedings. The court found it was premature to challenge the enforcement or stay the hearings until after the issuance of the Cease and Desist Orders.
PZLDF had originally planned to amend the Petition after issuance of the Cease and Desist Orders but based on new delays by the Regional Water Board to complete the balance of the hearings until at least May, it is probably more cost-effective to dismiss the current petition and re-file it later, according to a spokesman for PZLDF. (There are at lease 7 property owners to be heard.)
PZLDF request for dismissal will be filed immediately to avoid possible dismissal or prejudice to their legal challenges. On January 16, 2006: 14 of the 45 residents and property owners in Los Osos targeted for enforcement filed a petition for the State Water Resources Control Board to review the actions of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control (RWQCB).
The appeal is brought on behalf of all individual property owners and residents of Los Osos who have been or will be subject to the issuance of individual Cease and Desist Orders, or who oppose the “lottery style” enforcement actions taken by the water board and issuance of CDO’s that could result in loss of property.
Representation for the legal actions including the appeal is by Sullivan and Associates. Petitioners include designated parties who were issued Cease and Desist Orders at the December 14 and 15 hearings before the RWQCB.
-End-
Party Time!
Mark your calendars. Time for a benefit for The Los Osos 45, you know, your friends and neighbors who have spent a whole year being hammered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and who are now appealing their CDO case to both the State Water Board and, if necessary, into a “real court,” in hopes that the rest of the community doesn’t have to go through what they’ve been put through. (See above for some of what they’re been going through – including the fact that the State Water Board can sit on their appeal for nearly a year, thereby tying them up in “administrative” limbo while preventing them from even going to a “real court” to get anything close to “justice.”)
It’s a BBQ, with Music, and prizes on Sunday, March 18, noon to 6pm. at the South Bay Community Center, 2180 Palisades. Cost is $10. For more information call 528-8408 or go to www.PZLDF.org See you there.
Speaking of Seeing You There, Where Were You?
Citizens for Clean Water-PZLDF had a meeting last night at the Washington Mutual meeting room; guest speakers Paavo Ogren and two of the project engineers on the wastewater project. So, show of hands: How many of you folks who regularly log onto this blogsite to whine and kvetch and lie and make stuff up and ask ME questions bothered to show up and whine and kvetch and ask PAAVO questions? C’mon, how many of you were there?
I thought as much.
Had you attended the meeting you may have heard Paavo’s comments and replies to many questions. Some of the more interesting comments:
For those of you who keep stating that the community could have had a sewer years ago paid for by the federal government, Paavo would beg to differ for the following reasons: Resolution 83-13 wasn’t passed until 1983. That meant that there was no regulatory perception of a “problem” and by ’83 the county was working on a sewer but by about ’85 President Reagan had de-funded federal funding for such projects (it was the “Reagan Revolution” of cutting government programs -- to Reagan,” the government didn’t solve problems, the government WAS the problem -- so by the time the County had a project ready, there were no federal monies available to pay for the project, which meant the cost was “unaffordable” even in ’85.
Since Paavo was the first interim General Manager for the original CSD, he had a unique seat at the table, so to speak and some of his comments as to what went wrong here should be made mandatory listening and it had to do with what he called ‘Institutional Effectiveness,” that is, Does the institution (i.e. a CSD, any CSD) responsible for dealing with a project, have the resources to actually solve the problem?
In the case of our CSD the answer clearly was: No. When the original Ponds of Avalon failed to materialize, (and Ron Crawford has documented that the Solutions Group knew before the CSD formation that they wouldn’t be approved) the CSD simply lacked the resources needed to do a serious alternatives analysis. What happened instead was what I call the Tar Baby Syndrome: by sticking tightly to the [Tri-W] site they were forced to do A which led to B which led to C and so forth until the tracks they laid bit by bit headed off the cliff. (A tidbit: According to Paavo, as of now, MBR technology is off the table. It was mandated by sticking to the Tri-W site because it allows the treatment plant to fit into a very small footprint, but it’s expensive and an energy sucker and if that tiny footprint is no longer required, the technology is too wasteful to be considered. It’s an excellent example of the Tar Baby Syndrome.)
Paavo’s comments about “Institutional Effectiveness” is also an excellent reminder that it’s highly likely that this entire project was doomed from day one and its fate totally sealed by Regulatory pressure (FINES!FINES!FINES! Unreasonable TSOs, more FINES!FINES!FINES), bad information or lack of information (remember the tape of an early discharge site selection meeting of the original CSD wherein it was pointed out and acknowledged that the CSD didn’t have enough information to make a proper decision yet one had to be made that night or else face FINES!FINES!FINES – the worst kind of decision making process possible). Add on some key failures by the oversight bodies (Coastal Commission and BOS and County Planning) and you have the perfect mix for a perfect train wreck.
More comments: To Paavo, the RWQCB’s CDO date of 2011 is “unreasonable.” Apparently, most everybody except the RWQCB and their Grand Inquisitor understands that a project cannot be completed by 2011, the “drop dead” date they insisted be kept in the CDO and “Settlement Agreements.’ Paavo also expressed a hope that the RWQCB would follow the wording of AB2701, the point of which was that all parties “stand down,” something everybody except the RWQCB understood and neither did Governor Schwarzenegger, whose signing statement appended to AB2701 may also bollix up things.
Plus, interestingly, Paavo raised the fact that the RWQCB is faced with an interesting problem: The cost of complying with their regulations BLOWS OUT ALL AFFORDABILITY GUIDELINES, federal, state, all of ‘em. KaBoom! Out of the water. Which raises this issue: Does regulatory compliance legally require a community be destroyed in order to “save” it?
In a demographic chart passed out at the meeting, (based on the general census, not the PZ itself, which means the chart is skewed “richer” than the PZ reality) about 43% of the community are 55-75 with Median Houshold Incomes in the $35,00 range, which means that for them, even the $205-a-month Tri W sewer estimate would have gone beyond all Federal “affordability” ranges. Which gets back to: Does regulatory compliance require a community destroy 43% of its residents in order to “save” itself?
And finally another important comment by Paavo: Regulators can hurt or help AB 2701, that is, actions taken by the RWQCB could end up bollixing up AB2701 and making completion of the project harder, something apparently everyone except the RWQCB understands. Sigh.
Maria Kelly and Lynette Tornatzky will be hosting county representatives Thursday night March 1, for more questions on the 218 vote at the little schoolhouse at 6 pm. before the CSD meeting (wherein maybe we will learn that the 2.5 million that was held by the judge has now been released to the CSD without a peep from the papers and apparently no battle from the County which argued that that money should come to them as part of the wastewater funds so maybe Thursday night we’ll get some more info or a WWF Smackdown fight over the dough?) So, to all the folks who spend endless hours on this blog, at least go to Kelly’s meeting and ask Paavo your questions.
Hats off to Cal Poly Student Intern, Katherine Hamby.
If you got your swell February Brochure #2 on Proposition 218, there’s a note in there that informs us that the Los Osos Project Brochures are being designed and prepared by Cal Poly Senior, Kathy Hanby. Another great example of Cal Poly’s “hands-on” policy of education – students getting a chance to put their education to work in the real world with actual real-world projects. It’s a real win-win: the student gets invaluable experience, we (the “client”) get a brochure that cost less than 70 cents to produce.
Lobby, Gotta Lobby
At last night’s meeting, I posed a question that I intend to keep asking (it’s called Lobbying and I’m going to be doing it until I see a firm date set) and here it is: Will the county set up a workshop and invite the so-called Peer Review Group (i.e. National Water Research Institute) to come and “peer review” the Process and whatever systems float up to the top for final consideration and issue a report?
The answer was Yes. Dr. George Tchobanoglous had expressed an interest in returning for just such a look-see as well as Valerie Young, AICP, Environmental Planner and Water Reuse Specialist.
This is good. None of the folks at the Water Research Institute have a dog in this fight. Dr. T wrote the textbooks that all of the engineers building this project were taught from while in engineering school, so nobody can say he’s some doofus with a spoon. In short, we can have the benefit of the top experts in the world vetting whatever project is in the running so that the community can have confidence that there were no non-engineering thumbs on the scale (i.e. “political stuff” that has nothing to do with engineering and best practices). My hope is that such a vetting and report will go a long way in bringing the community together that whatever project they finally pick will, indeed, pass muster.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
Yes, Taxpayers Watch AND Atascadero Are Going To Hell In A HandBasket
Oh, noooo, not another ironic lawsuit! The Los Osos citizen group known as Taxpayers Watch is being sued by LAFCO (Local Area Formation) to get payment of the $27,747.50 LAFCO charged the group to go through the whole Los Osos CSD dissolution preparations and hearings. To date, the Los Osos CSD has not billed the group for its cost to defend against the dissolution of itself. (For more irony, the Tribune story notes that, “Taxpayers Watch has not determined whether its members would approach the services district for support.”
No, that’s not a sick joke. Apparently, TW is thinking that since the CSD has hired an attorney to join with some of The Los Osos 45 [private citizens] who have filed an appeal of their CDOs from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, well, maybe Taxpayers Watch [private citizens] could also get some help from the very group they so recently tried to disappear to death. (Since defending against the dissolution cost a bunch of money, it’s not clear whether any help the CSD might offer now would have to be deducted from whatever TW has already cost them. And, to keep apples from oranges, the CSD itself is a designated party in the CDO hearings, so signing on with this particular appeal may “help” the private citizens only coincidentally—they are simply running on parallel tracks.)
TW is disputing some of the charges and will try to negotiate the costs down. Meantime, I would suggest that everyone in the community who signed the dissolution petitions needs now to step forward and send a few bucks to Taxpayers Watch. Time to put your money where your pens and pencils were and support the folks who were doing your bidding. Supposedly there were some 3,000 signatures on that dissolution petition, so if each of those folks coughs up $10 bucks, that’ll do the trick. (Or maybe $15, if the CSD bills TW for, say, ½ of the $27,000 bill for their share of the costs?)
Also meanwhile, I think all of us might want to think about these charges. The process itself is there to be used by citizens in forming and de-forming CSDs and such like. Being charged for using the process does indeed, as Ms. Albright notes in the Tribune, “. . . [take] away citizens’ ability to petition their government. They’re going after the group that even dared bring up the issue.”
So maybe what was needed here (and is still needed here for the future) is some method of separating “frivolous” (politically motivated, hidden-agenda, anger/personal driven) dissolution requests from “non-frivolous” (clear evidence of financial meltdown, illegal governance, inability to govern, illegal fraud) driven dissolution. It should also be policy that dissolution can only be approached when other methods have failed. In this case, there were options to dissolution – another recall, an upcoming election to change the Board, petitions to create a new measure on the ballot to do such and such, & etc. In that way, dissolution would be a truly serious LAST step that, if lost, could cost you a bundle, which would make citizens very, very cautious about approaching LAFCO in the first place.
Atascadero, hand me that hand basket.
The Atascadero school board has now flip-flopped and voted again, this time to NOT to allow students off campus to attend religious instruction.
I found this whole story so utterly weird. It was modified déjà vu all over again.
When I was in Junior High, way back in the Jurassic Era, Catholic kids, with their parent’s permission, were allowed once a week to attend catechism classes for one hour a day, off campus. When I was in High School, seniors with a certain GPA average who had completed all their graduation requirements, were allowed, with their parents permission, to skip the last period and leave campus at 2 pm, rather than 3 p.m.. In my case, I opted to go home an hour early, thus freeing me up for further study, homework and/or to work on special projects. None of this was a big deal.
Now, apparently, it is a big deal. And apparently, some of the discussion has gotten truly weird. This from the Tribune story: “ . . . sophomore Brandon Istenes, delivered a spirited speech dressed as a pirate in which he explained that even fringe religions wanting to hold classes would have to be considered if the motion [to let kids attend off-campus activities] passed.”
Uh, and your point is? Where I grew up, Catholics were considered a “fringe religion,” but if the parents wanted their kids excused for that “fringe” activity, they were. And in high school, when you were off campus, the school had no say in what you were up to, even dressed like a “fringe” pirate. That was your parents’ concern and the police’s concern, if you were up to no good. Not the school’s.
Our schools are too often doing a cruddy job of educating our kids. What they do need to do is set policy that focuses on exactly what requirements they feel kids need to be minimally educated and if the kid meets those criteria, then so be it. If their parents want them to leave early to attend Holy Basket Weaving classes, fine. What’s the problem? It isn’t the school’s role to decide what religions are “fringe.” It’s the school’s role to try to make sure Johnny & Janey can read, write, do math, Please God think critically, and know enough history to be able to spot bunk and hokum when they see it.
Oh, noooo, not another ironic lawsuit! The Los Osos citizen group known as Taxpayers Watch is being sued by LAFCO (Local Area Formation) to get payment of the $27,747.50 LAFCO charged the group to go through the whole Los Osos CSD dissolution preparations and hearings. To date, the Los Osos CSD has not billed the group for its cost to defend against the dissolution of itself. (For more irony, the Tribune story notes that, “Taxpayers Watch has not determined whether its members would approach the services district for support.”
No, that’s not a sick joke. Apparently, TW is thinking that since the CSD has hired an attorney to join with some of The Los Osos 45 [private citizens] who have filed an appeal of their CDOs from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, well, maybe Taxpayers Watch [private citizens] could also get some help from the very group they so recently tried to disappear to death. (Since defending against the dissolution cost a bunch of money, it’s not clear whether any help the CSD might offer now would have to be deducted from whatever TW has already cost them. And, to keep apples from oranges, the CSD itself is a designated party in the CDO hearings, so signing on with this particular appeal may “help” the private citizens only coincidentally—they are simply running on parallel tracks.)
TW is disputing some of the charges and will try to negotiate the costs down. Meantime, I would suggest that everyone in the community who signed the dissolution petitions needs now to step forward and send a few bucks to Taxpayers Watch. Time to put your money where your pens and pencils were and support the folks who were doing your bidding. Supposedly there were some 3,000 signatures on that dissolution petition, so if each of those folks coughs up $10 bucks, that’ll do the trick. (Or maybe $15, if the CSD bills TW for, say, ½ of the $27,000 bill for their share of the costs?)
Also meanwhile, I think all of us might want to think about these charges. The process itself is there to be used by citizens in forming and de-forming CSDs and such like. Being charged for using the process does indeed, as Ms. Albright notes in the Tribune, “. . . [take] away citizens’ ability to petition their government. They’re going after the group that even dared bring up the issue.”
So maybe what was needed here (and is still needed here for the future) is some method of separating “frivolous” (politically motivated, hidden-agenda, anger/personal driven) dissolution requests from “non-frivolous” (clear evidence of financial meltdown, illegal governance, inability to govern, illegal fraud) driven dissolution. It should also be policy that dissolution can only be approached when other methods have failed. In this case, there were options to dissolution – another recall, an upcoming election to change the Board, petitions to create a new measure on the ballot to do such and such, & etc. In that way, dissolution would be a truly serious LAST step that, if lost, could cost you a bundle, which would make citizens very, very cautious about approaching LAFCO in the first place.
Atascadero, hand me that hand basket.
The Atascadero school board has now flip-flopped and voted again, this time to NOT to allow students off campus to attend religious instruction.
I found this whole story so utterly weird. It was modified déjà vu all over again.
When I was in Junior High, way back in the Jurassic Era, Catholic kids, with their parent’s permission, were allowed once a week to attend catechism classes for one hour a day, off campus. When I was in High School, seniors with a certain GPA average who had completed all their graduation requirements, were allowed, with their parents permission, to skip the last period and leave campus at 2 pm, rather than 3 p.m.. In my case, I opted to go home an hour early, thus freeing me up for further study, homework and/or to work on special projects. None of this was a big deal.
Now, apparently, it is a big deal. And apparently, some of the discussion has gotten truly weird. This from the Tribune story: “ . . . sophomore Brandon Istenes, delivered a spirited speech dressed as a pirate in which he explained that even fringe religions wanting to hold classes would have to be considered if the motion [to let kids attend off-campus activities] passed.”
Uh, and your point is? Where I grew up, Catholics were considered a “fringe religion,” but if the parents wanted their kids excused for that “fringe” activity, they were. And in high school, when you were off campus, the school had no say in what you were up to, even dressed like a “fringe” pirate. That was your parents’ concern and the police’s concern, if you were up to no good. Not the school’s.
Our schools are too often doing a cruddy job of educating our kids. What they do need to do is set policy that focuses on exactly what requirements they feel kids need to be minimally educated and if the kid meets those criteria, then so be it. If their parents want them to leave early to attend Holy Basket Weaving classes, fine. What’s the problem? It isn’t the school’s role to decide what religions are “fringe.” It’s the school’s role to try to make sure Johnny & Janey can read, write, do math, Please God think critically, and know enough history to be able to spot bunk and hokum when they see it.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
PZLDF Public Meeting
Please mark your calendars. Another chance to get information directly from Paavo Ogren, who’s in charge of the Wastewater Project.
Public invited:
Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund (PZLDF) Meeting
Monday February 26, 2007 -7:00 pm Washington Mutual Bank
"Compliance is linked to a project….and A PROJECT to a successful process..."
Guest speaker: Paavo Ogren, SLO Co Los Osos Project Director, will discuss the process toward a successful project for Los Osos.
Background:
In January 2006, 45 residents were randomly selected by the Regional Water Board as a test case for unprecedented enforcement action against individuals. However, all 5000 properties-residences, and businesses- in the Los Osos prohibition zone are targeted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for prosecution in the near future.
Regulatory compliance requires a wastewater solution for Los Osos. The primary legislative intent of AB 2701 (the Blakeslee Bill) is to create a process for the county to assume control of the Los Osos wastewater project, and to provide the means and expertise to deliver a successful project. Paavo Ogren, SLO Co Los Osos Project Director is the invited guest speaker Monday February 26, 2007.
Enforcement taken now does not improve water quality or further that process. Individual enforcement undermines the County’s ability to succeed in delivering a project, because it further divides the community.
The Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund (PZLDF) is for everyone who favors a project in the foreseeable future, and an end to the division in Los Osos.
The association’s mission & purpose cuts across any political factions or ideologies. PZLDF goals of Clean Water, Regulatory Compliance, and Protection of Property Rights, are a common concern for ALL citizens.
Concerned that recent water board enforcement against individual residents is unjust and counter-productive in achieving the water board’s goals, PZLDF assisted the community in proactively defending residents & business owners.
"Misapplied enforcement deprives citizens of their due process, equal protection, and property rights." According to spokesperson Gail McPherson. PZLDF keeps lines of communication open with the water board, the county and the district. PZLDF proposed proactive enforcement options to improve water quality, and offered constructive settlement plans in lieu of orders. PZLDF recently joined to file a “petition for Review” with the State Water Resources Control Board (Feb 16, 2007) for Cease and Desist Orders and settlement Clean up and Abatement Orders issued December 15, 2006. Shaunna Sullivan is representing designated parties in the appeal of the Regional Water Boards enforcement action.
For more information:
Gail McPherson (805) 459-4535 or for reservations Laurie McCombs (805) 528-8408
The Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund holds weekly meetings every Monday at Washington Mutual Bank, the public is welcome.
Donations to the fund can be made at Coast Bank or Checks payable to PZLDF P.O 6095 Los Osos 93412
Please mark your calendars. Another chance to get information directly from Paavo Ogren, who’s in charge of the Wastewater Project.
Public invited:
Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund (PZLDF) Meeting
Monday February 26, 2007 -7:00 pm Washington Mutual Bank
"Compliance is linked to a project….and A PROJECT to a successful process..."
Guest speaker: Paavo Ogren, SLO Co Los Osos Project Director, will discuss the process toward a successful project for Los Osos.
Background:
In January 2006, 45 residents were randomly selected by the Regional Water Board as a test case for unprecedented enforcement action against individuals. However, all 5000 properties-residences, and businesses- in the Los Osos prohibition zone are targeted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for prosecution in the near future.
Regulatory compliance requires a wastewater solution for Los Osos. The primary legislative intent of AB 2701 (the Blakeslee Bill) is to create a process for the county to assume control of the Los Osos wastewater project, and to provide the means and expertise to deliver a successful project. Paavo Ogren, SLO Co Los Osos Project Director is the invited guest speaker Monday February 26, 2007.
Enforcement taken now does not improve water quality or further that process. Individual enforcement undermines the County’s ability to succeed in delivering a project, because it further divides the community.
The Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund (PZLDF) is for everyone who favors a project in the foreseeable future, and an end to the division in Los Osos.
The association’s mission & purpose cuts across any political factions or ideologies. PZLDF goals of Clean Water, Regulatory Compliance, and Protection of Property Rights, are a common concern for ALL citizens.
Concerned that recent water board enforcement against individual residents is unjust and counter-productive in achieving the water board’s goals, PZLDF assisted the community in proactively defending residents & business owners.
"Misapplied enforcement deprives citizens of their due process, equal protection, and property rights." According to spokesperson Gail McPherson. PZLDF keeps lines of communication open with the water board, the county and the district. PZLDF proposed proactive enforcement options to improve water quality, and offered constructive settlement plans in lieu of orders. PZLDF recently joined to file a “petition for Review” with the State Water Resources Control Board (Feb 16, 2007) for Cease and Desist Orders and settlement Clean up and Abatement Orders issued December 15, 2006. Shaunna Sullivan is representing designated parties in the appeal of the Regional Water Boards enforcement action.
For more information:
Gail McPherson (805) 459-4535 or for reservations Laurie McCombs (805) 528-8408
The Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund holds weekly meetings every Monday at Washington Mutual Bank, the public is welcome.
Donations to the fund can be made at Coast Bank or Checks payable to PZLDF P.O 6095 Los Osos 93412
Saturday, February 17, 2007
“I’m vilifying you, for God’s sake. Pay attention.”
Henry II to Eleanor in James Goldman’s The Lion In Winter
Got a phone call yesterday morning a little after 8 am from Harvey Packard, Division Chief for the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Harvey’s sort of in charge of running the “Torquemada’s Mad Hatter Tea Party & Auto-d-fe Public Beheading & Traveling CDO Show” until Roger Briggs returns from his extended vacation. Harvey’s one of the people CDO recipient Bill Moylan stood a few feet away from at the Jan 22 "trial" and looked directly at and said “What does matter is that members of the Water Board prosecution team were informed many times last year that people were suffering physically, emotionally, and spiritually from this CDO process, and that the Water Board had an obligation to help the people of Los Osos and not hurt them, and those pleadings were ignored.”
Harvey just sat there and ignored Bill as well, even though he knew firsthand that this process was hurting people, which was weird since I don’t think Harvey is a sociopath, so the question remains: Does he truly not know what he’s doing is scientifically pointless or is he just being a good German and following orders? If he honestly thinks the CDO requirements will have an impact on groundwater in the short time until the County finishes the wastewater system, he should have a little sit down chatty-poo with Tim Cleath of Cleath & Associates, or maybe Dr. Wickham or Dr. George of the so-called Peer Review Group. If he’s just following orders, and he knows those order are injuring people, ah, then a far more interesting moral question presents itself, doesn’t it?
Of course, there’s always the possibility that Harvey knows perfectly well that the only reason for the CDOs is as a coercive Prop 218 electioneering device but, since I’m sure that’s all very illegal, then his only option is to follow orders and keep his mouth shut, which again presents more interesting moral issues for Harvey.
Meantime, he clearly cares enough when he feels he’s been misquoted in the paper, which is why he came to be calling me. Seems Harvey has a secret vice: checking my blog on occasion, especially if he hears I’ve mentioned his name or am vilifying him and the rest of the Mad Hatter Crew. I know, it’s an awful thing to admit to, sort of like confessing that you collect Kewpie Dolls or egg cartons or secretly hoard string and have a ball of it six feet across in your garage.
I had posted a previous blog entry that noted that a February 11 Tribune story quoted Packard as saying that “his agency must move ahead with its process in the event that the current plan falls through. He added, though, that the regional board has no plans now to expand enforcement beyond the 45 targeted.” [italics mine]. I questioned the accuracy of that quote since the Board had not met to decide anything about future CDOs and I thought at the time how unfortunate that quote was because it implied to the Los Osos reader that if they were not one of The Los Osos 45, then they didn’t have to worry since they were off the hook, which was sooooooo not true, but certainly would be a great misapprehension to get out into the community so as to keep them again off balance by keeping them poorly mis-and-mal-informed.
Turns out that I was right and here was Harvey to let me know, Yep, it was an “incorrect quote.” He thought the reporter, Sona Patel, had understood what he meant, but apparently the truth was simply too difficult for poor Sona to comprehend.
And anyway, the statement she did print was accurate even though it was totally misleading, which is actually pretty cool: Say one thing that is technically accurate yet creates a totally different meaning, then if anyone questions it, simply say (accurately) that you were quoted incorrectly. Mission accomplished: The reader is misled but you’re off the hook.
In the case of Harvey and the “no plans now to expand enforcement beyond the 45 targeted,” that is technically true. As of 8 a.m. February 16th, 2007 Harvey has not received nor has the Regional Board issued any instructions to proceed with issuing CDOs on the rest of the community, even though that has been the Board’s stated intention, an intention Harvey has repeated ad infinitum, but since he does not have the actual paperwork on his desk in front of him as he makes that statement, he can “truthfully” say he “has no plans now (8 a.m. February 16th.) to expand enforcement beyond the 45 targeted.” And if he gets a phone call at 8:05 a.m telling him to proceed with 4,955 CDOs, well, that still doesn’t change the accuracy of his original statement and so it’s not Harvey’s problem.
And if the reader misunderstands, well, that’s not Harvey’s problem either, now is it?
More tea anyone?
Henry II to Eleanor in James Goldman’s The Lion In Winter
Got a phone call yesterday morning a little after 8 am from Harvey Packard, Division Chief for the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Harvey’s sort of in charge of running the “Torquemada’s Mad Hatter Tea Party & Auto-d-fe Public Beheading & Traveling CDO Show” until Roger Briggs returns from his extended vacation. Harvey’s one of the people CDO recipient Bill Moylan stood a few feet away from at the Jan 22 "trial" and looked directly at and said “What does matter is that members of the Water Board prosecution team were informed many times last year that people were suffering physically, emotionally, and spiritually from this CDO process, and that the Water Board had an obligation to help the people of Los Osos and not hurt them, and those pleadings were ignored.”
Harvey just sat there and ignored Bill as well, even though he knew firsthand that this process was hurting people, which was weird since I don’t think Harvey is a sociopath, so the question remains: Does he truly not know what he’s doing is scientifically pointless or is he just being a good German and following orders? If he honestly thinks the CDO requirements will have an impact on groundwater in the short time until the County finishes the wastewater system, he should have a little sit down chatty-poo with Tim Cleath of Cleath & Associates, or maybe Dr. Wickham or Dr. George of the so-called Peer Review Group. If he’s just following orders, and he knows those order are injuring people, ah, then a far more interesting moral question presents itself, doesn’t it?
Of course, there’s always the possibility that Harvey knows perfectly well that the only reason for the CDOs is as a coercive Prop 218 electioneering device but, since I’m sure that’s all very illegal, then his only option is to follow orders and keep his mouth shut, which again presents more interesting moral issues for Harvey.
Meantime, he clearly cares enough when he feels he’s been misquoted in the paper, which is why he came to be calling me. Seems Harvey has a secret vice: checking my blog on occasion, especially if he hears I’ve mentioned his name or am vilifying him and the rest of the Mad Hatter Crew. I know, it’s an awful thing to admit to, sort of like confessing that you collect Kewpie Dolls or egg cartons or secretly hoard string and have a ball of it six feet across in your garage.
I had posted a previous blog entry that noted that a February 11 Tribune story quoted Packard as saying that “his agency must move ahead with its process in the event that the current plan falls through. He added, though, that the regional board has no plans now to expand enforcement beyond the 45 targeted.” [italics mine]. I questioned the accuracy of that quote since the Board had not met to decide anything about future CDOs and I thought at the time how unfortunate that quote was because it implied to the Los Osos reader that if they were not one of The Los Osos 45, then they didn’t have to worry since they were off the hook, which was sooooooo not true, but certainly would be a great misapprehension to get out into the community so as to keep them again off balance by keeping them poorly mis-and-mal-informed.
Turns out that I was right and here was Harvey to let me know, Yep, it was an “incorrect quote.” He thought the reporter, Sona Patel, had understood what he meant, but apparently the truth was simply too difficult for poor Sona to comprehend.
And anyway, the statement she did print was accurate even though it was totally misleading, which is actually pretty cool: Say one thing that is technically accurate yet creates a totally different meaning, then if anyone questions it, simply say (accurately) that you were quoted incorrectly. Mission accomplished: The reader is misled but you’re off the hook.
In the case of Harvey and the “no plans now to expand enforcement beyond the 45 targeted,” that is technically true. As of 8 a.m. February 16th, 2007 Harvey has not received nor has the Regional Board issued any instructions to proceed with issuing CDOs on the rest of the community, even though that has been the Board’s stated intention, an intention Harvey has repeated ad infinitum, but since he does not have the actual paperwork on his desk in front of him as he makes that statement, he can “truthfully” say he “has no plans now (8 a.m. February 16th.) to expand enforcement beyond the 45 targeted.” And if he gets a phone call at 8:05 a.m telling him to proceed with 4,955 CDOs, well, that still doesn’t change the accuracy of his original statement and so it’s not Harvey’s problem.
And if the reader misunderstands, well, that’s not Harvey’s problem either, now is it?
More tea anyone?
Friday, February 16, 2007
Yes, It’s The Department of “I Can’t Believe He Said That.”
In his Jan 15 article in New Times, Patrick Klemz discusses the Los Osos CSD vote to join forces with The Los Osos 45 and sign on with Los Osos attorney Shaunna Sullivan who is filing an appeal of the CDOs at the behest of some of the 45 to the State Water Board. That vote earned the ire of CSD Board Member, Joe Sparks, who wrote a Tribune “Viewpoint” (Feb 15) His objection appears to be a district spending money on legal fees “without having the funding source identified.”
Interestingly, what seems to have gone missing is the fact that – please correct me if I’m wrong here – the CSD was granted status as a Designated CDO recipient and had its kangaroo court “trial” and can now file an appeal. Furthermore, the CSD has to prepare an appeal of its ACL “trial,” a good amount of which can be appealed on the same basis as the CDO appeal, plus most of the CSD’s “trial” evidence was incorporated by reference by other CDO recipients so the CSD and The Los Osos 45 are indeed joined at the hip. (The Regional Water Quality Control Board has already clearly linked individual residents and the CSD together, which is why they have targeted everyone inside the PZ for a CDO. This makes claims of citizens somehow being “private” absurd. To the RWQCB the citizen IS the CSD and vice versa.) And if the CSD is already paying one attorney to handle their CDO/ACL appeal, and there’s another identical appeal from citizens and both are on one track, (and to the Water Board, citizen & CSD are one in the same) does it make financial sense to join those appeals? Apparently, Yes to the majority of the CSD Board and No to Mr. Sparks, hence we now have (again) Governance By Tribune “Viewpoint.”
Oddly, if the appeal is successful either with the Water Board or in a real court of law, the rulings could apply to the entire process and hence could affect all The Los Osos 45, the entire Prohibition Zone AND the entire CSD, including those outside the PZ. Plus, efforts by PZLDF (Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund) has already raised private donations to move the appeal process forward, so whatever work has already been done and paid for would also benefit the CSD’s appeal. In addition, Ms. Sullivan was quoted in the NT article as saying, “The CSD hasn’t paid me for anything yet. . . . Most of what’s been done so far as been on my dime. It’s been frustrating donating my services to a cause and getting ripped for it (in the media)”
Getting ripped for donating services to Los Osos? Par for the course in what Klemz deliciously describes as “the nitrate-crazed bedroom community.”
Well, presumably the CSD Board will figure out what jar to take the CSD’s CDO/ACL defense fund out of (Hint: The CSD’s regular attorney would have to bill for time spent on that appeal, so instead, why not assign that part of his budget to Ms. Sullivan?)
Well, as NT notes, “This is just another item for the grand jury,” said former [recalled] board member Richard LeGros.”
Which gets us into the I Can’t Believe He Said That portion: Re the CSD’s vote to hire Sullivan, “They’re populists – they have no problem using public funds to fight activist battles, “LeGros said. “It’s a gross violation of government code.” . . . said the man who had no problem voting to unnecessarily gamble AND LOSE gazillions of dollars of nice money that belonged to those “populist” taxpayers when he voted to start construction on Tri W weeks before the recall election that removed him from office.
Yep, just another item for the grand jury, especially if they’re asked to consider issues of “due diligence” in governing.
In his Jan 15 article in New Times, Patrick Klemz discusses the Los Osos CSD vote to join forces with The Los Osos 45 and sign on with Los Osos attorney Shaunna Sullivan who is filing an appeal of the CDOs at the behest of some of the 45 to the State Water Board. That vote earned the ire of CSD Board Member, Joe Sparks, who wrote a Tribune “Viewpoint” (Feb 15) His objection appears to be a district spending money on legal fees “without having the funding source identified.”
Interestingly, what seems to have gone missing is the fact that – please correct me if I’m wrong here – the CSD was granted status as a Designated CDO recipient and had its kangaroo court “trial” and can now file an appeal. Furthermore, the CSD has to prepare an appeal of its ACL “trial,” a good amount of which can be appealed on the same basis as the CDO appeal, plus most of the CSD’s “trial” evidence was incorporated by reference by other CDO recipients so the CSD and The Los Osos 45 are indeed joined at the hip. (The Regional Water Quality Control Board has already clearly linked individual residents and the CSD together, which is why they have targeted everyone inside the PZ for a CDO. This makes claims of citizens somehow being “private” absurd. To the RWQCB the citizen IS the CSD and vice versa.) And if the CSD is already paying one attorney to handle their CDO/ACL appeal, and there’s another identical appeal from citizens and both are on one track, (and to the Water Board, citizen & CSD are one in the same) does it make financial sense to join those appeals? Apparently, Yes to the majority of the CSD Board and No to Mr. Sparks, hence we now have (again) Governance By Tribune “Viewpoint.”
Oddly, if the appeal is successful either with the Water Board or in a real court of law, the rulings could apply to the entire process and hence could affect all The Los Osos 45, the entire Prohibition Zone AND the entire CSD, including those outside the PZ. Plus, efforts by PZLDF (Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund) has already raised private donations to move the appeal process forward, so whatever work has already been done and paid for would also benefit the CSD’s appeal. In addition, Ms. Sullivan was quoted in the NT article as saying, “The CSD hasn’t paid me for anything yet. . . . Most of what’s been done so far as been on my dime. It’s been frustrating donating my services to a cause and getting ripped for it (in the media)”
Getting ripped for donating services to Los Osos? Par for the course in what Klemz deliciously describes as “the nitrate-crazed bedroom community.”
Well, presumably the CSD Board will figure out what jar to take the CSD’s CDO/ACL defense fund out of (Hint: The CSD’s regular attorney would have to bill for time spent on that appeal, so instead, why not assign that part of his budget to Ms. Sullivan?)
Well, as NT notes, “This is just another item for the grand jury,” said former [recalled] board member Richard LeGros.”
Which gets us into the I Can’t Believe He Said That portion: Re the CSD’s vote to hire Sullivan, “They’re populists – they have no problem using public funds to fight activist battles, “LeGros said. “It’s a gross violation of government code.” . . . said the man who had no problem voting to unnecessarily gamble AND LOSE gazillions of dollars of nice money that belonged to those “populist” taxpayers when he voted to start construction on Tri W weeks before the recall election that removed him from office.
Yep, just another item for the grand jury, especially if they’re asked to consider issues of “due diligence” in governing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
