Judges (Some, Only Some) On Los Osos' Lawsuits

I was at a party Friday night in SLO. I knew the hosts and had for 10+ years, but really no one else that night (except my husband, who would prefer not to be mentioned in a sewer blog—well, probably no one wants to be mentioned in here......). The double doors from the main room were open to the patio, where a chiminea was radiating heat and the koi pond waterfall was burbling. I was chatting with a brainy man about politics when a long time friend of his appeared. Brainy man asked him about how his work was going and he said what he was doing. His name was Roger and he was a retired judge. JUDGE ROGER PICQUET!! I nearly fainted. Me: you worked on Los Osos sewer cases!!! He politely and almost indistinguishably cringed a little. He quickly said, and lightly laughed, a lot of us did. He then turned and went inside, perhaps find another hors d'oeuvres or I thought more likely, to trade the chardonnay for a scotch. I felt awful. I had probably ruined his evening.

He did eventually come back out (fortunately with the same drink). I gave him my chair (as penance for dragging his mind where I am sure he never wanted it to go again). I said I was going back in for food, and I was (yes, it was my third plateful of food, I will be honest about that, I never skimp at a party, and the plates were not that large either—you know, the kind you can hold and walk around with).

That chair was graciously offered to me when I came back out, and we had a very pleasant 15-minute conversation! Not about the sewer, but about the bolluxed up Los Osos election and SLO life, normal stuff. Sigh. Poor Los Osos....... But I was thrilled to have met a living, and correct! decision maker for our beleaguered little burg.

When I got home I combed through my computer's hard drive for lawsuits and news articles on Los Osos sewer cases. I am only counting the ones from 2003 - 2006. There were employed on those ghastly tasks, the judges listed below:

Judge Douglas Hilton

Stopped the Recall Board stand down order - 10-7-2005.

Judge Martin Tangeman

Ruled the infamous Measure B illegal.

Judge Barry LaBarbera

The PZLDF case can go forward. (You don't want to know what a pizzle is, but the group called themselves the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund until they found out what it was. They then became Citizens for Clean Water.)

Judge Charles Crandall

PZLDF vs. RWQCB.

Judge Robin Riblet

Bankruptcy.

Now, for Judge Picquet, I found:

2003

Judge Roger Picquet presided over and dismissed the case brought by Cal Cities Water Company against the Regional Water Quality Control Board for allowing a sewer in Los Osos that would return reclaimed water to the ground which would pollute the existing water. (Source: Bay News.)

And this:

March 24, 2005 (The board mentioned here is the pre recall CSD Board - CCLO was the feeder group for directors that were voted into the spots of recalled directors.)


Judge Roger Picquet heard demurrers to the portions of the second lawsuit regarding the wastewater project, CV041047, originally filed in December 2004 by CCLO, late yesterday. This lawsuit alleged that two additional Coastal Commission permits were required before the Los Osos Community Services District could build the wastewater project. Judge Picquet granted LOCSD’s motion to strike these allegations from the lawsuit without leave to amend. Thus, the portions of this lawsuit that could have affected construction of the Los Osos Wastewater Project have been dismissed and the superior court will not consider them further. The only remaining allegation in the lawsuit involves LOCSD’s storm drain facilities not involving the wastewater project. (Source: Tribune.)

And this:

May 24, 2005 (Recall Board)

Judge Dismisses CCLO Lawsuit Against LOCSD

Judge Roger Picquet today dismissed the lawsuit filed by Concerned Citizens of Los Osos in San Luis Obispo County Superior Court.  CCLO had alleged that the LOCSD Board was required to adopt ordinances on the Los Osos Wastewater Project by a 4/5 vote. The judge disagreed, and ruled that the 3/5 majority that voted in December was adequate for adopting ordinances for the Los Osos Wastewater Project. 


Judge Picquet granted the District’s motion to demurrer without leave to amend, and indicated that since his ruling was a matter of law, there was no way to cure the petition for subsequent consideration. (Source: Tribune.)

And this:

Judge Picquet presided over the 2005-2006 Grand Jury which explored the expenditure of public funds by the Recall LOCSD Board.

And this:

Early April, 2006 (Recall Board)

In April, Judge Roger Picquet blocked the services district from using the remaining $2 million to $3 million from a state low-interest loan until the agency resolves a $28 million payment dispute with two contractors hired to build a state-mandated sewer. (Source: Tribune.)

And this:

April 7, 2006 (Recall Board)

On April 5, 2006, the CSD sent a letter of objection to the Superior court. They claim that last Thursday ruling by Judge Picquet is incomplete, does not specifically state a dollar amount to be frozen, and requests that the audit be completed prior to a ruling. In short, the CSD is going to continue to spend SRF money regardless of the Court ruling freezing it. Sounds like Contempt of Court to me. (Source: April 7, 2006 - Calhoun's Cannon Blog, Ann Calhoun, posted by Anonymous.)

And that is where I will leave it for now. Judge Picquet, if you ever read this blog and get depressed or have nightmares, please seek treatment immediately (and forgive me for reminding you of probably the worst cases you were ever forced to hear).

LOCSD Candidate's Forum 2016 Sewer Reference

Thursday night at the only LOCSD candidate's forum of this election season, a former director is running to be on the board again. While introducing herself, she reiterated her unsubstantiated LOCSD bankruptcy story—that it was not at all her fault. It is unclear as to why she even went to this topic, as maybe five people read this blog where I write about it. This is the only place that I know where this is even being mentioned these days, so is this opinion more widely held than I thought, that she needed to defend her version at the forum? I do post comments on the Tribune though......Have a look at the Nick Wilson article about the forum:
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/politics-government/election/article109796382.html

Well, anyway, time to move ahead with eyes firmly on the rearview mirror. Julie Tacker appears to want us to follow that unsettling path toward dissolution and we need to watch what she is up to. We have been down this gritty road before, I was there, so I know how hard attempting dissolution can be. We were not successful, despite the many weeks of work and lots and lots of money. Ms. Tacker is sowing the seeds for another attempt however, and it is yet another means of wrenching apart the community just as it was coming together after the 30-year sewer war. She wants dissolution to be on the next ballot. That is just SO WRONG.

Ms. Tacker came on the scene in 2002 and was one of the founders to initiated a campaign to reject the sewer project that we had then, which included filing lawsuits and appeals to state commissions and boards. She managed to get herself elected to the LOCSD in 2004 (she ran in 2002 and didn't win). Below is an image off of the "Concerned Citizens of Los Osos" website. She says she stepped down from being its President when elected. 

What she didn't step down from was the path to bankruptcy. I will post a chart below that shows how the cost for a sewer was upped year after year due to legitimate claims and then obstruction. The chart ends at mid-2005, before the recall election and the illegal Measure B. Note CCLO, Ms. Tacker's cause on the chart.

(Click on the image to increase the size.)

What happened to change public opinion was the slow dripping of anti-sewer opinions, each by itself meaning nothing, but over time, the tiny drips worked up to a concretion of resistance that froze the Mid-Town project in 2005. The bankruptcy soon followed. This dissolution idea has now begun its own drip. Do we sit here and watch it or do we stop it? This forum and the reporting of it is the first time the idea has landed in a very visible place: it only had a mention at a LOCSD meeting, and on Facebook, and that online crackpot rag, CalCoastNews. It has now has the legitimacy of The Tribune.

Ms. Tacker, the hypocrisy of running for a seat on a board that you wish to destroy is pretty amazing. It is getting a seat on that same board you nearly demolished in 2006. I guess if it wasn't killed off the first time, you try again, is that it? I can't help but think you have motives to do this beyond your claim of "saving money." That didn't work so well the last time, did it?

The Gang That Couldn't Poop Straight

Well, you knew THAT title was going to appear here someday, didn't you!?

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.