Tribgate

You know what really bugs me about the Tribune?

It's not that they said they would publish my recent Viewpoint, but never did, until I published it here, on my blog, and THEN, Tribune managing editor, Tad Weber, contacted, opinion page editor, Stephanie Finucane, one day after I posted my piece, with this:

- - -
Hi Ron,
Tad forwarded me your blog entries. Again, we have no problem running your letter and posting your viewpoint. We’ll try to get that in later in the week.

To ensure that your letters are processed more expeditiously in the future, please address them to letters@thetribunenews.com.

Thanks so much,
Stephanie
- -

... and THEN, about two weeks after my initial submission, they finally published my Viewpoint (on their web site)... one day after I published it on my blog (along with some scathing commentary, where I reiterated my original take that the Tribune's reporting on this story over the past 11 years has been "worse than nothing." Funny, sad, and true!)

And it's not even that Finucane told me that when they published my piece, they would post my "entire piece on our Web site and refer to it from the letter," but then never referred to it from the letter.

No.

What really bugs me about the Tribune, is that in my Viewpoint, I concisely, and perfectly, show how the 2005 Los Osos Community Services District Board sat and listened to a roughly 10-1 ratio of Los Osos residents that begged them to set the recall election date at one of the EARLIEST possible dates, and then that same board promptly ignored that 10-1 ratio and set the recall election date at one of the LATEST possible dates -- because they could, because they, like ALL board majorities facing recall in California, took advantage of that terrible law that I'm trying change -- and by setting the election at one of the latest possible dates, they were able to not only out-raise their opponents in campaign contributions by about a 3-1 clip (with the lion's share of the contributions coming from all the contractors and engineering firms that stood to make a ton of cash off the embarrassing and illegal Tri-W project), but they also created the window of time needed for them to cash a $6 million dollar State check, and then immediately begin wasting that money on an unpopular, embarrassing, illegal, mid-town sewer plant... that ripped up a bunch of officially classified "Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area," and also, in that same Viewpoint, I reported how the top elections official in SLO County, Julie Rodewald, told me that, had it been her decision to make, she would have set that date at one of the EARLIEST possible dates, and the Trib, apparently, STILL doesn't seem to find any of that newsworthy.

[MEMO to Trib Editors and Reporters: The reason Rodewald told me that is because I picked up something called a "telephone," pushed some buttons, and asked her this question: "If it had been your decision to make, would you have set the Los Osos recall election date closer to the earliest possible date or closer to the latest?" It's called reporting. You guys might want to try it sometime.]

$6 million of State funds wasted, for no reason whatsoever. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat ripped up... for no reason whatsoever. A 10-1 "Please, set the recall election date at one of the earliest possible dates" ratio, and the Trib refuses to report on any of it, despite the fact that my Viewpoint outlines all of it... perfectly.

I swear, if you look at the Trib's reporting on this story over the past 10 years, and then look at my reporting on this story over that same time frame, it looks like we're reporting on two completely different stories.

However, the ginormous problem for the Trib these days is this: Three people that don't live anywhere near Los Osos -- Assemblyman Blakeslee, SLO County Clerk-Recorder, Julie Rodewald, and me -- all sat and watched the 2005 LOCSD Board majority listen to, and then ignore, that 10-1 ratio, and, today, all three of us are on the exact same page.

Think about it...

Not only did Rodewald tell me she would have set the date at one of the earliest possible dates, she even went so far as to recommend that the Secretary of State should set recall election dates, after I first proposed that the date be set by the county's top election official.

Blakeslee, after witnessing first-hand (like me and Rodewald) the colossal damage that can result from allowing elected officials that are facing recall to set their own recall election date, chose my "What Ought to be a Law" idea as one of the seven finalists in his contest, after receiving some 250 entries.

It would appear that Blakeslee, Rodewald, and SewerWatch are on one page, and the Trib, for reasons unknown, is on another.

###

The Tribune -- STILL "Worse Than Nothing"

Maybe it's because I coined the phrase "worse than nothing" to describe the Tribune's reporting on the Los Osos sewer issue over the past decade, but, whatever the reason, the more-and-more-irrelevant-with-each-passing-day Trib doesn't seem to be in any hurry to publish my Viewpoints.

For example, I submitted the following piece to the Trib on January 12, and, as of January 21, they've yet to publish it.

Good thing I have my own widely read, heavily linked, highly-Google-ranked blog, huh?

- - -

Viewpoint

Regarding Bill Morem's piece ("There oughta be a lot fewer laws, actually," Jan. 10, 2008), I agree with Morem, and the two letter writers that he references in his column, Doug Swanson, and Richard Placak, there oughta to be fewer laws... a lot fewer.

However, I think I can help answer Mr. Swanson's question when he asks, "Please help me (and the rest of your over-regulated, excessively taxed readers) understand why this contest is a good thing?"

I can "help" with that.

I can help with that because the "There Ought to be a law" idea I submitted to Assemblyman Blakeslee's contest is one of the seven finalist, and the reason Assemblyman Blakeslee's contest is a "good thing" -- no, a great thing -- is, because if my law idea wins, democracy in California will grow stronger.

Additionally, my law idea will not "further control our lives and spend our tax money," as Mr. Placak writes. In fact, just the opposite. The law I suggest will give voters more control over their government, and save countless billions of dollars of California taxpayer money over the decades to come.

My "There Ought to be a law" idea concerns the way election law is written in California, specifically, recall election code.

Astonishingly, California election law, right now, today, allows elected officials that are facing recall to set their own recall election date, and that terrible law has recently led to disastrous consequences in two California communities... that I know of.

In 2006, after speaking with SLO County's top election official, Julie Rodewald, regarding this subject, I wrote a piece for my blog (sewerwatch.blogspot.com) titled, California's Recall Election Code -- Always Bad Policy... Always, where I show, specifically, how Section 11240 of the California Elections Code (CEC) -- the law that allows for elected officials that are facing recall to set their own recall election date in California -- has absolutely devastated, just gutted two communities, Rosemead and Los Osos, within the past few years, and unless it is changed, it will continue to rip communities apart, forever, and continue to cost taxpayers a fortune, forever.

As currently written, wherever there is a recall election in California, Section 11240 will rear its ugly head... every... single... time... unless it is changed.

In Rosemead, as I show in my piece, the 2006 City Council was able to delay the recall election date for about a month, due to Section 11240, and that allowed about a month's more time for Wal-Mart -- with that annoying, sneaky, behind-the-scenes maneuvering they do in communities, like Atascadero, for example -- to pour all kinds of money into the coffers of the Council members (Wal-Mart project supporters, of course) facing recall (because of the Wal-Mart project), and the citizens of Rosemead were badly outspent, naturally.

Not surprisingly, that recall failed.

The exact same grossly undemocratic situation happened in Los Osos in 2005, because of Section 11240... only with a different end result.

In Los Osos, the LOCSD recall election date was pushed back to one of the latest possible dates by the three Directors facing recall, Gordon Hensley, Stan Gustafson, and Richard LeGros (Rodewald would later tell me that if it had been her decision to make, she would have set the date at one of the earliest possible dates), and that allowed their campaigns to collect and outspend the majority of the community at about a 3-1 clip, with the vast majority of the contributions coming from all the contractors, and everyone else that stood to make a ton of cash on the failed, mid-town Tri-W project.

Furthermore, in Los Osos, due solely to Section 11240 of the CEC, the extra month that the three CSD Directors afforded themselves in 2005, allowed them the window of time to begin construction on the unpopular, mid-town sewer plant project, a location that is classified Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area, "sensitive dune habitat."

One month after they began construction on the Tri-W project, all three LOCSD Directors were recalled, and construction was immediately stopped.

That was in September of 2005, and the "Environmentally Sensitive" site is still badly scarred today, and the millions of dollars spent on the premature site work would prove to be completely wasted -- all directly due to Section 11240 of the California Elections Code (CEC).

It's the worst law I've ever seen. It's so undemocratic. Not only does it cost California taxpayers a fortune, it has the added bonus of shredding the community fabric of a town into tiny, little pieces.

My "There Ought to be a law" idea is to simply get the authority to set a recall election date out of the hands of the elected officials that are facing recall, and give it to another agency. That's it. There would be no "further government oversight or enforcement," just a couple of quick changes in the language of the existing code. It should take about ten minutes.

Simply give the authority to the local election official (in SLO County, that would be Rodewald). Give it to the Secretary of State. Give it to LAFCO. I really don't care who gets to set recall election dates in California, as long as it's not the elected officials that are facing recall.

In, California's Recall Election Code -- Always Bad Policy... Always, I wrote that I would advocate for a change in Section 11240 of the CEC. Assemblyman Blakeslee's contest affords me the perfect opportunity to advocate for a change in that terrible, undemocratic law.

Morem concludes: "... instead of rewarding our legislators for passing more laws, we actually want less."

I conclude, If California's deeply flawed recall election code is changed as a result of Mr. Blakeslee's contest, and future communities facing recall elections are not torn apart, and countless billions of California taxpayer money is saved over the upcoming decades, then Mr. Blakeslee's contest was an outright, over-the-top, smashing success... just ask the citizens of Rosemead and Los Osos.

###

To read, California's Recall Election Code -- Always Bad Policy... Always, with complete details on Ron Crawford's law change idea, just log on to his blog at: sewerwatch.blogspot.com. The links will be at the top.

Here's the direct link to California's Recall Election Code -- Always Bad Policy... Always:
http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/09/californias-recall-elections-code.html

- - -

... seemed like a good piece to me. But the Trib didn't even publish it on their web site, like they said they would... as long as I reformulated, and then massively condensed, all of my complex arguments into a 200 word letter.

Wanna have a little fun? Check out this exchange... it's hilarious:

- - -

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:05:06 -0800

Dear Mr. Crawford,

We would be happy to print a letter-length response to the objections raised to the "There Ought to Be a Law" contest, but we won't be able to print your viewpoint-length piece in the paper.

We could, however, post your entire piece on our Web site and refer to it from the letter.

If you would like to submit a letter, please be advised that it should be no longer than 200 words.

Thanks,

Stephanie Finucane, opinion editor

- - -

... so, I responded with a copy-and-paste job from my original piece, because I was in no mood to reformulate all of my already tight, complex arguments for the "worse than nothing" Tribune;

- - -

Hello Stephanie,

Would something like this work?

Dear Editor,

Regarding Bill Morem's piece ("There oughta be a lot fewer laws, actually," Jan. 10, 2008), I agree with Morem, and the two letter writers that he references in his column, Doug Swanson, and Richard Placak, there oughta to be fewer laws... a lot fewer.

However, I think I can help answer Mr. Swanson's question when he asks, "Please help me (and the rest of your over-regulated, excessively taxed readers) understand why this contest is a good thing?"

I can help with that because the "There Ought to be a law" idea I submitted to Assemblyman Blakeslee's contest is one of the seven finalist, and the reason Assemblyman Blakeslee's contest is a "good thing" -- no, a great thing -- is, because if my law idea wins, democracy in California will grow stronger."

My complete Viewpoint (too lengthy for print) on this subject can be read on the Tribune's web site at:

(and then just put the link info here)

Ron Crawford,
sewerwatch.blogspot.com

- - -

Would that suffice?

I appreciate the web offer.

Thanks,
Ron


P.s. Please call me Ron.

- - -

... and then Finucane replied;

- - -

Hi Ron,

Why don’t you go ahead and include a brief mention of your proposal in the body of the letter? We will do a refer to our Web site next to your letter. That will stand out more than a reference within the letter itself.

- - -

and then I, growing tired of the tedious back-and-forth, replied;

- - -

Hello Stephanie,

I'm pretty lazy, so, do I have to write a whole new letter to set-up my Viewpoint, or how 'bout if I just add this copy-and-paste paragraph from my piece at the end of my letter... talking about my piece?

Dear Editor,

Regarding Bill Morem's piece ("There oughta be a lot fewer laws, actually," Jan. 10, 2008), I agree with Morem, and the two letter writers that he references in his column, Doug Swanson, and Richard Placak, there oughta to be fewer laws... a lot fewer.

However, I think I can help answer Mr. Swanson's question when he asks, "Please help me (and the rest of your over-regulated, excessively taxed readers) understand why this contest is a good thing?"

I can help with that because the "There Ought to be a law" idea I submitted to Assemblyman Blakeslee's contest is one of the seven finalist, and the reason Assemblyman Blakeslee's contest is a "good thing" -- no, a great thing -- is, because if my law idea wins, democracy in California will grow stronger."

My "There Ought to be a law" idea is to simply get the authority to set a recall election date out of the hands of the elected officials that are facing recall, and give it to another agency. That's it. There would be no "further government oversight or enforcement," just a couple of quick changes in the language of the existing code. It should take about ten minutes.

Ron Crawford,
sewerwatch.blogspot.com

- - -

[And then you guys could add something like this: "Ron Crawford's complete Viewpoint on this subject, with details on his law change idea, can be read on the Tribune's web site at:

(and then just put the link info here)"

Would that work?

Thanks again,
Ron

- - -

And that was that. I haven't heard back from them since, and that was on January 16. So, methinks the publishing window for my piece hath passed.

The Tribune -- with their revolving door (because they are cheap) for Los Osos reporters over the past ten years, -- is truly, worse than nothing. (All smack aside, I mean that. It would have been far better for Los Osos, and ALL California taxpayers, had the Tribune simply never written one word on the Los Osos sewer. Their uninformed, lazy reporting on the subject over the past decade has just been terrible. An embarrassment to journalism.)

While I'm on this subject, there's also this: My friend and I were at a Cal Poly basketball game a-coupla weeks back (by the way, the Mustangs need to find a way to pick up their offensive production), and I was telling him about how I'm one of the seven finalists in Blakeslee's contest. And that I first entered the contest as a joke, but when Blakeslee's office called and told me that my law idea could actually happen, I started to get into it.

So, at halftime, when we were drinking beer in the parking lot, my friend asked me, "Do you actually have to win that contest for your idea to go through?"

And, right there, when he asked that, I knew exactly where he was going with that question, because I'd thought the same thing myself: "Do I really have to win the contest to make it so elected officials that are facing recall in California don't get to set their own recall election date?"

That seems a bit silly, if that's the case.

I mean, we're all in agreement on this, aren't we... that elected officials facing recall shouldn't be setting their own recall election date?

We all agree on that, right?

So, I'll concede this: If Assemblyman Blakeslee's contest is, you know, some type of feel good, nicey-nice thing designed to get 12-year-old Junior involved in government, as opposed to providing a platform for a seasoned investigative journalist to further validate an in-depth, three year investigation that exposes what happened with the LOCSD from 1998 to today, and how that decade-long disaster has cost California taxpayers a multi... million... dollar... ginormous... f-ing... fortune, then, by all means, please give the title of "What Ought to be a Law" to Junior.

I just want California's recall election law changed... to prevent what happened in Los Osos from happening to other California communities.

I don't care how it's changed.

Sans spotlight is fine with me.

###