The ROCK delivers the goods. Hot off the digital presses!
Warren Jensen’s belated response to Lisa Schicker’s MWH/Ogren complaint paves the way for MWH to move forward, without legal impediments, in the design-build phase of the wastewater project as No. 1 contractor on the County’s handpicked short lists for both collection and treatment. At the same time, Counsel’s disclaimer shields the board. Schicker’s reaction…
» Read Article
It’s not sexy like the Edge/Wilcox scandal, but the Los Osos Public Comment scandal and coverup will cost Los Osos and County taxpayers millions of dollars more in rigged contracts, costs increases, more fees and charges, further damage to the threatened drinking water supply and probable litigation. The man pulling the strings behind the scenes of both scandals could pay at the polls in 2010, if voters take a deeper look…
» Read Article
Public comment on the Los Osos wastewater project at Board of Supervisors’ monthly updates is the time when no good deed goes unpunished, as Supervisor Gibson and idling board sidekicks turn the vice tighter and tighter on critics of the County’s town-sweeping $200-million megasewer built on the flimsiest foundation of lies and fraud. Following is a just a sampling of the vital public comment from Los Osos residents at monthly project updates on July 14 and August 4—ignored or dismissed by a board that almost never responds. We bring back some folks for an encore because public comment passes too quickly and should not be so quickly forgotten…
» Read Article
For special commentary on the articles, click the link below to read more.
Public comment is an important contribution to board business — and that’s something LOCSD President Joe Sparks doesn’t seem to understand. Sparks has said that public comment has the potential of bringing up new business and the subject matter is repetitive, therefore it’s acceptable for public comment to have a lower priority at board meetings. The BOS takes it one step further. While general public comment comes first before the discussion goes back to the board, the BOS collectively thumbs their noses at the public by refusing to verbally acknowledge the opinions presented. At times, even Gibson will go as far as to cross-examine members of the public as a means of discrediting them. Gibson has never questioned the credibility or the expertise of those who have firmly supported the County’s plans.
Since The Tribune published their article, “Seemingly endless Los Osos talk earns rebuke” – which detailed the reasons why the board decided to limit the amount of time for Los Osos public comment — the Board’s actions sent out a signal to members of the community to discriminate against those who have had their public testimony time suppressed. People have stated that the Board’s opinion of the 218 assessment results being a “mandate” sparked animosity from County supporters. Gibson’s aggressive dismissals of opposing viewpoints combined with the rest of the board’s unyielding silence has created a hostile atmosphere. Supporters of the County proudly took advantage of the Board’s actions by producing anonymous-fueled slander and threats hurled at those who stand at the frontlines of the sewer debate.
Some have argued that ignoring public comment has contributed to the $7 million “trainwreck,” as Los Osos resident Rhian Gulassa put it when she spoke at the BOS, but that $7 million is nothing compared to the $200 million for the entire wastewater project, which poses a great risk of failure — like “maybe” it may work. “You don’t spend $200 million on a maybe,” said resident Chris Allebe. Maybe the board should start listening to the people and the solutions they are providing.
Maybe Chairman Bruce Gibson should stop making a habit out of belittling those who have concerns.
Prior to the release of Jensen’s Preliminary Analysis of Materials, in the middle of a pending investigation, Gibson went on the record to dismiss the formal complaint issued by former CSD president Lisa Schicker. Without reading all of the 1,300 pages submitted for review, Gibson believed it was the “chairman’s prerogative” to say that there is “…nothing in any way credible” about the materials presented. Nothing, Mr. Gibson? That’s not much of an explanation — and those comments were unwarranted especially when Counsel is responsible for analyzing the complaint. Gibson’s exasperated flogging was unprofessional at best, spiteful at worst.
Jensen released his preliminary analysis of materials on August 18th, which unequivocally dismissed Schicker’s complaint while acknowledging that the analysis was inconclusive. As his reasons for presenting a resounding, “NO!” to Lisa Schicker’s concerns about Paavo Ogren’s involvement with Montgomery Watson-Harza, Jensen provided ambiguous assessments without detailing what is — out of the documents provided prior to May 2009 — what was inadmissible hearsay and what is not, what kind of “personal opinion” is acceptable and what isn’t. Even though Jensen clearly identifies Schicker’s specific “conflict of interest” claims as being faulty — and Jensen has explained the legally cognizable definition of conflict of interest in e-mails correspondence — the report is clearly lacking substance. Despite that being the case, County supporters have been too eager to tout the analysis as the final nail in the coffin.
Restricting public comment, suppressing dissent, snapping at the dissenters, wasting taxpayer money, refusing to willingly engage in constructive dialog with community members and refusing to acknowledge merit in legitimate concerns is all in a day’s work at the County government.
Here’s The Triple Whammy
The ROCK delivers the goods. Hot off the digital presses!
County Counsel Tries to Bury Schicker’s MWH/Ogren Complaint
Warren Jensen’s belated response to Lisa Schicker’s MWH/Ogren complaint paves the way for MWH to move forward, without legal impediments, in the design-build phase of the wastewater project as No. 1 contractor on the County’s handpicked short lists for both collection and treatment. At the same time, Counsel’s disclaimer shields the board. Schicker’s reaction…
» Read Article
Next Speaker… Shut Up! The Los Osos Public Comment Scandal
It’s not sexy like the Edge/Wilcox scandal, but the Los Osos Public Comment scandal and coverup will cost Los Osos and County taxpayers millions of dollars more in rigged contracts, costs increases, more fees and charges, further damage to the threatened drinking water supply and probable litigation. The man pulling the strings behind the scenes of both scandals could pay at the polls in 2010, if voters take a deeper look…
» Read Article
Best of Summer Public Comment: Los Osos Residents Fight Back Against Gibson Gag With Wit, Knowledge and Advice
Public comment on the Los Osos wastewater project at Board of Supervisors’ monthly updates is the time when no good deed goes unpunished, as Supervisor Gibson and idling board sidekicks turn the vice tighter and tighter on critics of the County’s town-sweeping $200-million megasewer built on the flimsiest foundation of lies and fraud. Following is a just a sampling of the vital public comment from Los Osos residents at monthly project updates on July 14 and August 4—ignored or dismissed by a board that almost never responds. We bring back some folks for an encore because public comment passes too quickly and should not be so quickly forgotten…
» Read Article
For special commentary on the articles, click the link below to read more.
Public comment is an important contribution to board business — and that’s something LOCSD President Joe Sparks doesn’t seem to understand. Sparks has said that public comment has the potential of bringing up new business and the subject matter is repetitive, therefore it’s acceptable for public comment to have a lower priority at board meetings. The BOS takes it one step further. While general public comment comes first before the discussion goes back to the board, the BOS collectively thumbs their noses at the public by refusing to verbally acknowledge the opinions presented. At times, even Gibson will go as far as to cross-examine members of the public as a means of discrediting them. Gibson has never questioned the credibility or the expertise of those who have firmly supported the County’s plans.
Since The Tribune published their article, “Seemingly endless Los Osos talk earns rebuke” – which detailed the reasons why the board decided to limit the amount of time for Los Osos public comment — the Board’s actions sent out a signal to members of the community to discriminate against those who have had their public testimony time suppressed. People have stated that the Board’s opinion of the 218 assessment results being a “mandate” sparked animosity from County supporters. Gibson’s aggressive dismissals of opposing viewpoints combined with the rest of the board’s unyielding silence has created a hostile atmosphere. Supporters of the County proudly took advantage of the Board’s actions by producing anonymous-fueled slander and threats hurled at those who stand at the frontlines of the sewer debate.
Some have argued that ignoring public comment has contributed to the $7 million “trainwreck,” as Los Osos resident Rhian Gulassa put it when she spoke at the BOS, but that $7 million is nothing compared to the $200 million for the entire wastewater project, which poses a great risk of failure — like “maybe” it may work. “You don’t spend $200 million on a maybe,” said resident Chris Allebe. Maybe the board should start listening to the people and the solutions they are providing.
Maybe Chairman Bruce Gibson should stop making a habit out of belittling those who have concerns.
Prior to the release of Jensen’s Preliminary Analysis of Materials, in the middle of a pending investigation, Gibson went on the record to dismiss the formal complaint issued by former CSD president Lisa Schicker. Without reading all of the 1,300 pages submitted for review, Gibson believed it was the “chairman’s prerogative” to say that there is “…nothing in any way credible” about the materials presented. Nothing, Mr. Gibson? That’s not much of an explanation — and those comments were unwarranted especially when Counsel is responsible for analyzing the complaint. Gibson’s exasperated flogging was unprofessional at best, spiteful at worst.
Jensen released his preliminary analysis of materials on August 18th, which unequivocally dismissed Schicker’s complaint while acknowledging that the analysis was inconclusive. As his reasons for presenting a resounding, “NO!” to Lisa Schicker’s concerns about Paavo Ogren’s involvement with Montgomery Watson-Harza, Jensen provided ambiguous assessments without detailing what is — out of the documents provided prior to May 2009 — what was inadmissible hearsay and what is not, what kind of “personal opinion” is acceptable and what isn’t. Even though Jensen clearly identifies Schicker’s specific “conflict of interest” claims as being faulty — and Jensen has explained the legally cognizable definition of conflict of interest in e-mails correspondence — the report is clearly lacking substance. Despite that being the case, County supporters have been too eager to tout the analysis as the final nail in the coffin.
Restricting public comment, suppressing dissent, snapping at the dissenters, wasting taxpayer money, refusing to willingly engage in constructive dialog with community members and refusing to acknowledge merit in legitimate concerns is all in a day’s work at the County government.