Defining "straight" in this case refers to being honest, being forthright, being open. "Poop" refers to work product, or in this case, the deflection thereof.
Much has been made over many months from the usual and long-standing sewer detractors about our sewer facilitators NOT being "transparent," and of our sewer project having "NO oversight!" Paavo Ogren, our soon-to-depart Director of Public Works (he is going to work in Oceano and will wear many hats there) has been accused of subterfuge, and our newly re-elected-by-a-landslide District 2 Supervisor Bruce Gibson has been hammered with accusations of mistruths as well. These are untrue accusations of course, but when you believe something strongly as these people do, you don't let facts get in the way.
I have been inspired by two things to write this column, the word "transparency" (thanks sewer detractors!), AND what Los Osos' new General Manager Kathy Kivley has been doing lately, that is, going through all of the old journal entries in the books and wading into the long misunderstood finances (by the public) to get a true accounting of what the District has, what it owes, and even what it owes to itself. So I have been doing a little financial sleuthing of my own, because as far as transparency goes, a nasty net of sludge covered what was going on with the District's finances starting on September 27, 2005. Nasty enough to get the SLO County Grand Jury involved back in 2006.
In fact, you really should read what was said in the Grand Jury Report about Los Osos. Start on page 77 of the report on Los Osos:
http://slocourts.net/downloads/grand_jury/reports/2005/final-2005-2006.pdf
Basically, the Grand Jury wanted to investigate if public funds, namely LOCSD funds, were used by the post-Recall LOCSD Board members* to pay off a law firm hired by a citizen's group, CCLO (Concerned Citizens of Los Osos) and Al Barrow (CASE - Citizens for an Affordable and Safe Environment) that had sued the LOCSD and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and crafted Measure B (which stopped the sewer—but was later found to be invalid). All five post-Recall sitting directors had been heavily involved with the group suing the LOCSD and the Water Board, and in crafting and defending Measure B. This law firm (Burke, Williams and Sorenson, or BWS) was then hired by the LOCSD after the payoff. The settlement amount of the five cases was $488,617.
The Grand Jury wanted to see detailed time logs and billing records of the law firm and requested these documents through the SLO County Counsel's office—twice. What they got back was nothing the first time and the second time the documents were so heavily redacted it was impossible to determine anything. Billable tasks were left blank. Why? one would ask if you had nothing to hide?
These settlement negotiations were conducted in the Board's closed session meetings. They were handled between an attorney representing the LOCSD and an attorney from BWS.The post-Recall Board was given a single-settlement dollar amount. They were "...not offered, nor did they request any detailed information on the breakdown as to what activities were billed and included in the settlement amounts." Also, a Board member said to the Grand Jury that they wanted to settle the cases so that they could retain BWS for future work.
The Grand Jury felt that since public funds were used to settle the lawsuits, the public has a right to know just what legal services were rendered when.
Why wouldn't the Board want to see what they were being asked to settle? What public input or oversight was there? Where was the transparency in what they were doing?
Those questions still remain, along with an icky feeling of being had, either by stupidity or just plain dirty dealings. The Citizen's groups, CCLO and CASE could well have gotten nothing. The Grand Jury was stymied and never got us the answers we deserved.
In fact, CASE and BWS were stiffed later. They were among the 20 largest claims in the Bankruptcy and got pennies on the dollar:
So then a question remains.....where did all the money go that the LOCSD borrowed from reserves as GM Kivley has found, and "borrowed" from our tax monies for the CDF Fire tax payment and the Bond payment to Bank of New York?
If you are interested in reading the LOCSD's finely crafted response to the Grand Jury (by BWS's Julie Biggs, no doubt), it is on pages 29-33:
http://slocourts.net/downloads/grand_jury/reports/2005/responses-2005-2006.pdf
* The LOCSD Board was: Lisa Schicker, Julie Tacker, Chuck Cesena, John Fouche, Steve Senet.
2 comments:
Lynette this is Lisa - your blog appeared on my google alerts - and I just skimmed your latest entry - oh my its a mess... if you really want to do a piece on LOCSD's finances and legal issues, you are going to have to begin with Paavo Ogren, Bruce Buel, Jon Seitz and the previous BOD - and the money they borrowed, shifted and juggled - more than $1.2 million if I recall - but you won't find many records of these actions because GM Bruce Buel ILLEGALLY deleted all his public record files and emails before he left our employment and he and Mr. Sietz (the lawyer who was also privy to all their actions) are both deceased and their secrets were carried to their graves. Your investigation, and unfortunately the waste of the GM'S precious time is a shame because you don't have the whole picture - I recommend that you also take a look at the complaints filed with the DA's office and also my detailed deposition report that was prepared in response to the many very expensive lawsuits filed against our board by the groups that you were affiliated with - talk about a money drain, please also disclose that many of the totals listed in your report were a result of THOSE lawsuits and please give full credit where credit is due! I wish I had the time to explain the details to you but I am afraid you are barking up the wrong tree and have partial facts only - and I am not really sure what you are trying to do, and how this helps our town today, our water or are future - I think the rest of us are trying to heal and move on from a very painful chapter, and we would like to see the LOCSD focus on today's issues. You obviously like to write and investigate, and I did too, that is why I ran and was elected, I saw many problems that preceded your move to this town or your involvement in the LOCSD public process - a good reporter needs to look at everything, and I can only hope that if you decide to continue with your historical research, that you will attempt to do the same - but as I said, so many files were destroyed, illegally by Mr. Buel - he used to tell me that he purposely did not write things down, and that he kept the finances "in his head" - you may not be aware that he also changed the financial software system to so his original financial actions are not likely traceable - so many mistakes before we even were elected, we inherited an illegal mess and your musings on why we did this or that are only partially informed because of this. I don't usually write, but after skimming your blog, I was compelled, more history, more background, more research are needed if you really want to report on the complexities of all of this. Sincerely from Lisa Schicker
Google alerts must be pretty sluggish this days as this blog entry was made almost two months ago. It certainly isn't my latest!
Ms. Kivley's investigations have nothing to do with me or anything that I have said or done. This is the work of a very competent and professional GM that is trying to rectify the books. Whatever comes out, comes out. I am not worried.
You may make all the accusations you like, and you will be believed or not, but the Grand Jury never got the information that it requested from your board and surely you had that information. You knew what was redacted. Your non-release of that information is what is at question here. Was the Public's money used or not? We never found out. That is a legal issue that you could attempt to explain. Should the Grand Jury not asked those questions?
In any case, the lawsuits did not come exclusively from Taxpayers' Watch, there were others from the Water Agencies that didn't look kindly on your stopping of a project already in progress. Or much more to the point, rejecting the offers they made to you for you to be able to KEEP the project, such as holding a 218 vote. All the complaints made by Tri-W detractors about NO 218, and when your board had a chance to do one, you refused! Did you really think, after being a party to filing so many lawsuits against the old board, that none would come your way?
The result today of your board's mishandling of so many opportunities is a District struggling to come back to life after 8 years of bankruptcy; the water projects that could not be done—furthering saltwater intrusion and causing over-pumping because of that bankruptcy; and a sewer costing $30 million more.
You and Julie were on the Board prior to the recall; if you say the books were a mess, then you should have straightened them out when you got control. How did you think you could pull off a sewer project if the books were a mess and you didn't know how much money you had? The tax money came into the District to pay the bond on time as it always did, but when it was time to pay the bond, it was gone! We are paying that back at the rate of $25,000 a year.
I don't see the public speakers at the Board of Supervisors trying to heal anything. All I hear is complaints about the current project and how much they dislike Mr. Gibson and Mr. Ogren, and even Mr. Waddell! The few people that show up for District meeting dis the General Manager and the sitting board. Chuck dissed the board Thursday night in fact.
I would be happy to pursue more of this. Perhaps someday when the District isn't so short staffed I would put in some public records requests. But not now. That would be really unfair on a District trying to get back on its feet.
BTW, the District IS focusing on today's issues. But that doesn't mean that the money should not be sorted out.
Post a Comment