Letter to League of Women Voters

October 16, 2008 by Aaron

Here is the e-mail I sent to the League of Women Voters in San Luis Obispo:

Dear Directors of The League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo:

I am writing you on behalf of several concerned residents of Los Osos regarding an incident that occurred at the October 13 Candidates Forum in Los Osos sponsored by the League of Women Voters.

Minutes before the debate was about to begin, the League’s host, holding a letter she did not read, said she had received an “unusual request.” Without identifying who the letter was from or reading it or discussing it previously with the candidates, she announced that the League would honor this “unusual request” to disqualify the Los Osos Wastewater Project from audience-participation questions since the project was now within the jurisdiction of the County.

Not only was the audience, as well as at least three of the candidates, surprised by this last-minute announcement and decision by the League, but they also found it unfair since (1) it significantly altered the landscape of the debate by changing the boundaries, (2) the candidates were not told it would be off limits and were “thrown off” since they came prepared to address this candidate-defining issue, and (3) the County does not have official legal jurisdiction over the Los Osos Wastewater Project until the Board of Supervisors votes to accept the project, which they have not.

Though the text of Assembly Bill AB 2701, as it was written under Legislative Counsel’s Digest, clearly authorizes “the County of San Luis Obispo to undertake any efforts necessary to construct and operate a wastewater collection and treatment system to meet the needs of the Los Osos Community Services District,” the Los Osos Community Services District retains the right to advocate the criteria necessary to build a proper wastewater collection and treatment system for Los Osos residents, and the Los Osos Community Services District did not relinquish their advocacy role.

We civil residents of Los Osos would feel greatly assured that the integrity of the Forum was not compromised by the “unusual request” if you could inform us as to when the letter was written, the author and contents of the letter, and why the letter was injected into the debate at literally the last minute and not discussed beforehand with the candidates themselves to see if they agreed on the substance and direction of the letter.

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully,

Aaron Ochs

Updated October 17, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Here is a response issued by President of the LWV in San Luis Obispo, Ann Garfinkel:

Dear Mr. Ochs,

Thank you for contacting the League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo County concerning the candidates forum held on 10/13/2008. Please let me clarify the events of the evening.

The moderator did not receive any letter, hence read no letter. The paper in her hands contained her opening remarks.

Prior to the forum the candidates were advised of the sewer construction question exclusion, and the reasons for same. The selection and construction of the sewer project is under the jurisdiction of the County Board of Supervisors, not the Community Services District. The community will have time to address these issues when the survey is mailed to all residents.

Candidates were told explicitly that the exclusion did not apply to them. They were free to address the sewer issue.

One question from the audience was asked of the candidates regarding the sewer: “Do you agree with ‘county process’ for choosing and building a wastewater treatment system?”

The answers given ranged from strong support to support with qualifications. Each candidate could have gone into more detail during closing statements.

I hope this answers your questions. Thank you again for contacting the League of Women Voters.

Sincerely,

Ann M Garfinkel
President

A follow-up response will be issued by 8:00 PM PST.

About Aaron

Originally from Santa Monica, California, law student and musician Aaron Ochs (b. 1984) is Managing Editor of The ROCK, a newspaper covering California's Central Coast.

Prior to the launch of The ROCK, Ochs was a regular contributor to local politics in Los Osos, California, actively providing input and analysis of controversial topics such as the Los Osos wastewater project. Ochs has also garnered attention for being a vocal supporter for the Democratic Party and Barack Obama during his presidential bid.

Since 2005, Ochs has run a small graphic and web design business from his home. As co-founder of OchsStudios, he has worked on several web sites including the Central Coast Green Cooperate and former Los Osos Community Services District board member candidate Karen Venditti. He has also done several ad designs for local businesses on the Central Coast.

Sewertoons

I think it’s great that no sewer questions were asked. Had they been, the same old people would have slammed the candidates with the same old questions, leaving the really relevant issues of bankruptcy, emergency services, and drainage in the dust while a flurry of step vs. gravity distractions filled the air.

Perhaps the issue over “no sewer questions” is brought forth by the people who realize the relevancy of the no sewer/move the sewer stance is waning and thereby their power is vanishing, too.
Sewertoons

I think it’s great that no sewer questions were asked. Had they been, the same old people would have slammed the candidates with the same old questions, leaving the really relevant issues of bankruptcy, emergency services, and drainage in the dust while a flurry of step vs. gravity distractions filled the air. Perhaps the issue over “no sewer questions” is brought forth by the people who realize the relevancy of the no sewer/move the sewer stance is waning and thereby their power is vanishing, too.
Aaron

True.

However, the League of Women Voters were moderating the questions so I would imagine that the same old people — or anyone — slamming the candidates would not have their day in the sun.

When I talk about wastewater issues, I’m not talking about Gravity vs. STEP because, in my mind, that consideration is solely at the County’s discretion — and that’s where Ann is right.

What matters to me more is what was said and done when the TAC members were consultants for the County.

Think of it this way. Let’s say another presidential debate was held with Barack Obama and John McCain, both members of the Senate. What if the moderator said to them before the debate began, “Listen, I have a ‘request’ and my request is for you to not talk about your experiences in the Senate because it’s irrelevant to the campaign.”

It would be a rather short debate.

I think it’s a wonderful thing to not get bogged down by the wastewater issue and talk about issues of bankruptcy, emergency services and drainage, but if you’re going to say to people, “I decided to run because I want to end the divisiveness,” then you should be prepared to discuss where the divisiveness came from and how the community can be thoroughly rehabilitated and purged of all the vitriol and if it takes the audience to take on the source of that divisiveness, then it has to be done.
Aaron

True.However, the League of Women Voters were moderating the questions so I would imagine that the same old people — or anyone — slamming the candidates would not have their day in the sun.When I talk about wastewater issues, I’m not talking about Gravity vs. STEP because, in my mind, that consideration is solely at the County’s discretion — and that’s where Ann is right. What matters to me more is what was said and done when the TAC members were consultants for the County.Think of it this way. Let’s say another presidential debate was held with Barack Obama and John McCain, both members of the Senate. What if the moderator said to them before the debate began, “Listen, I have a ‘request’ and my request is for you to not talk about your experiences in the Senate because it’s irrelevant to the campaign.”It would be a rather short debate.I think it’s a wonderful thing to not get bogged down by the wastewater issue and talk about issues of bankruptcy, emergency services and drainage, but if you’re going to say to people, “I decided to run because I want to end the divisiveness,” then you should be prepared to discuss where the divisiveness came from and how the community can be thoroughly rehabilitated and purged of all the vitriol and if it takes the audience to take on the source of that divisiveness, then it has to be done.
Sewertoons

Aaron, your comment, “Listen, I have a ‘request’ and my request is for you to not talk about your experiences in the Senate because it’s irrelevant to the campaign,” doesn’t quite work. We know the County has the process. The CSD’s input is very, very, very tiny at best. So how does talking about the sewer help anyone determine their vote on who best might address the real issues of money, bankruptcy and drainage?

The TAC is the TAC and anyone can review the DVD’s and see what was said by whom. That is irrelevant to what is going on with the CSD and bankruptcy issues. Sure, as a water purveyor the CSD is part of the ISJ, but that has little to do with the Directors. They are hardly experts on water pumping issues.

A one minute history by a candidate is not going to fill an unknowledgeable voter in on what they need to know about Los Osos’ divisiveness. Certainly not enough to make them understand how to vote to end it. That is one of the things a voter will have to feel out by the candidates’ presentations if they do know enough.

You have forgotten the first forum two years ago. The league was out of their league in dealing with the sewer questions. The focus needed to be on where did all the money go and how to address the bankruptcy, but instead focused on step/steg vs. gravity and which side were you on. As irrelevant then as it is now.

I think the flurry over the “request” issue is simply displeasure over the removal of the topic that has worked best in the past to win for the “out-of-town” proponents. That being off the table, as it should be, is just making them crazy. It shows to the rest of us who support the County process how scared they are about losing what illusionary pull they think they have and what might come their way with an honest board majority.
Sewertoons

Aaron, your comment, “Listen, I have a ‘request’ and my request is for you to not talk about your experiences in the Senate because it’s irrelevant to the campaign,” doesn’t quite work. We know the County has the process. The CSD’s input is very, very, very tiny at best. So how does talking about the sewer help anyone determine their vote on who best might address the real issues of money, bankruptcy and drainage? The TAC is the TAC and anyone can review the DVD’s and see what was said by whom. That is irrelevant to what is going on with the CSD and bankruptcy issues. Sure, as a water purveyor the CSD is part of the ISJ, but that has little to do with the Directors. They are hardly experts on water pumping issues.A one minute history by a candidate is not going to fill an unknowledgeable voter in on what they need to know about Los Osos’ divisiveness. Certainly not enough to make them understand how to vote to end it. That is one of the things a voter will have to feel out by the candidates’ presentations if they do know enough.You have forgotten the first forum two years ago. The league was out of their league in dealing with the sewer questions. The focus needed to be on where did all the money go and how to address the bankruptcy, but instead focused on step/steg vs. gravity and which side were you on. As irrelevant then as it is now.I think the flurry over the “request” issue is simply displeasure over the removal of the topic that has worked best in the past to win for the “out-of-town” proponents. That being off the table, as it should be, is just making them crazy. It shows to the rest of us who support the County process how scared they are about losing what illusionary pull they think they have and what might come their way with an honest board majority.
Aaron

Tiny? According to AB 2701, the law does not completely strip power from the Los Osos Community Services District as the board still has to establish some boundaries for County consideration, so I wouldn’t say their input is tiny nor is their input significant. I feel the CSD’s input is, however, far more appreciated and considered than community input via public comment at Board of Supervisor meetings.

Sewertoons, in my opinion, it really doesn’t matter, at this point, about the sewer project because we can all agree that the County is handling it to a greater extent. Now, the issue I have is what was said and done by members of the TAC that could attest to their core values. Let me give you an example.

Remember when Maria Kelly said, “The ends don’t justify the means,” at the last CSD meeting? Out of exasperation, Kelly said that Karen Venditti’s supporters were “no sewer” proponents and in favor of the Reclamator. In the mailer that was released prior to the meeting, Kelly said that she would be fair and objective and was against confrontational meetings.

Upon bringing up the subject of wastewater, she made statements contrary to views printed in the mailer. That, in my eyes, is fair game. That, in my eyes, is not “simply displeasure” over the removal of something garnered by “out-of-town” proponents.

As you said so eloquently before, how does talking about the sewer help anyone determine their vote on who could best address the real issues?

It’s not about the sewer, it is about what was said under the wastewater moniker. I believe that what was said qualifies and legitimizes questioning regarding positions of the wastewater issue. The wastewater issue is the primary source of dissent and chaos in our town. If you want to be the healer, you’re going to have to address that along with the other issues that matter and are more relevant.
Aaron

Tiny? According to AB 2701, the law does not completely strip power from the Los Osos Community Services District as the board still has to establish some boundaries for County consideration, so I wouldn’t say their input is tiny nor is their input significant. I feel the CSD’s input is, however, far more appreciated and considered than community input via public comment at Board of Supervisor meetings.Sewertoons, in my opinion, it really doesn’t matter, at this point, about the sewer project because we can all agree that the County is handling it to a greater extent. Now, the issue I have is what was said and done by members of the TAC that could attest to their core values. Let me give you an example.Remember when Maria Kelly said, “The ends don’t justify the means,” at the last CSD meeting? Out of exasperation, Kelly said that Karen Venditti’s supporters were “no sewer” proponents and in favor of the Reclamator. In the mailer that was released prior to the meeting, Kelly said that she would be fair and objective and was against confrontational meetings.Upon bringing up the subject of wastewater, she made statements contrary to views printed in the mailer. That, in my eyes, is fair game. That, in my eyes, is not “simply displeasure” over the removal of something garnered by “out-of-town” proponents. As you said so eloquently before, how does talking about the sewer help anyone determine their vote on who could best address the real issues? It’s not about the sewer, it is about what was said under the wastewater moniker. I believe that what was said qualifies and legitimizes questioning regarding positions of the wastewater issue. The wastewater issue is the primary source of dissent and chaos in our town. If you want to be the healer, you’re going to have to address that along with the other issues that matter and are more relevant.