I Don't Remember this Lesson in Civics Class

TO: wjensen@co.slo.ca.us, ahill@co.slo.ca.us, fmecham@co.slo.ca.us, jpatterson@co.slo.ca.us, kachadjian@co.slo.ca.us, bgibson@co.slo.ca.us
DATE: 1/28/10

Dear Supervisors, and County Counsel,

Yesterday I cc'd you on an e-mail (reprinted below) that I sent to SLO County parks planner, Jan Di Leo, where I had to beg her for the staff report for an Item listed on the agenda for tonight's Parks Commission meeting:

"8. Proposal from San Luis Obispo Botanical Gardens – Dave Porter (7:00)"

This morning -- the morning of the meeting -- she finally replied:

- - -
Ron,
That item was continued until February 25, 2010. At this point there is no report. I believe Dave Porter was simply coming to give a report. Our web site has the Parks Commission agenda and staff reports. So, prior to the February meeting (around Feb. 19th) you should be able to down load [sic] the agenda and the report (if there is one).

Jan Di Leo
Parks Planner
SLO County Parks
- - -

I have several questions, and comments, regarding that response.

1) Can an Item posted on an agenda be "continued" even before Board discussion on that Item, and on the same day of the meeting?

[Please keep in mind that I recently published my complaint with the FPPC, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/01/great-san-los-osobispo-botanical-sewer.html

... asking them to investigate this arrangement:

Where Pandora Nash-Karner is Bruce Gibson's appointment to the SLO County Parks Commission, and she also sits on the Board of Directors for the San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden -- a facility that leases County-owned land, is discussed at Parks Commission meetings, and is also planning a "$20 million" expansion, and, according to their executive director, the one proposal they have received to design the project was from the SWA Group, where Nash-Karner's husband, Gary Karner, was a "Managing Principal and Senior Project Manager for 27 years and is currently retained by SWA."

THEN, just two days ago (read: less than 72 hours ago), I read on the Parks Commission agenda for tonight's meeting:

"Proposal from San Luis Obispo Botanical Gardens – Dave Porter (7:00)"

THEN, I begged Mrs. Di Leo for the staff report, and two days later she replied:

"That item was continued until February 25, 2010. At this point there is no report."

THEN, Mrs. Di Leo writes, "I believe Dave Porter was simply coming to give a report," when the Item clearly says, "Proposal."

THEN, Mrs. Di Leo writes, "Our web site has the Parks Commission... staff reports," when it clearly doesn't. Here's the link:

http://www.slocountyparks.com/information/parkscommission.htm ]

and;

2) Considering that Item 8 wasn't postponed until AFTER I asked for the staff report for that Item (less than 72 hours ago) -- and as of THIS MORNING, the web site that lists the agenda still reads: "Proposal from San Luis Obispo Botanical Gardens – Dave Porter (7:00)" -- shouldn't a staff report still have been prepared, according to the Brown Act?

[By the way, I'll also be adding these possible (and egregious) Brown Act violations to my FPPC complaint.]

Thank you in advance for your prompt replies,
Ron

P.S. Boy, these run-arounds are a lot of work.

- - -

Sent 1/27/10:

Hello Jan,

Yesterday morning I sent you an e-mail requesting the staff report for the following item on this Thursday's Parks Commission meeting agenda:

"Proposal from San Luis Obispo Botanical Gardens – Dave Porter (7:00)"

That was 24 hours ago, and I've yet to receive a response, although you were kind enough to promptly respond to my other e-mails, below, and thank you for that.

That meeting is tomorrow, so PLEASE, is there any way I can get that report today? (And, frankly, I'm a little disappointed that the report isn't linked on the Parks Commission web site, like they are with other SLO County government agencies, like the Planning Commission, and the Supes.)

So, again, please e-mail me the staff report for that item, and the proposal (if available) as soon as possible. And, please don't force me to do a public records request to get that staff report, as those take up to 10 days to fulfill, and the meeting is tomorrow.

Thanks again,
Ron

- - -

Incidentally, from the Parks Commission meeting minutes from December, 2009:

"Proposal from San Luis Obispo Botanical Gardens – Dave Porter. Postponed."

###

Askin' Questions, and Makin' Quotas

TO: SLO County Supervisor, Bruce Gibson, District 2
DATE: 1/26/10

Dear Supervisor Gibson,

I recently asked the Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate your Parks Commissioner, and whether a possible conflict of interest exists involving her ties to the San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden, and her husband's landscaping firm, the SWA Group.

Here's the link to my complaint:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/01/great-san-los-osobispo-botanical-sewer.html

While I wait for the FPPC's response, I'm curious to what you think about that situation.

Are you o.k. with that arrangement -- where Pandora Nash-Karner is your appointment to the SLO County Parks Commission, and she also sits on the Board of Directors for the San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden -- a facility that leases County-owned land, is discussed at Parks Commission meetings, and is also planning a "$20 million" expansion, and, according to their executive director, the one proposal they have received to design the project was from the SWA Group, where Nash-Karner's husband, Gary Karner, was a "Managing Principal and Senior Project Manager for 27 years and is currently retained by SWA."

Do you think there might be a conflict of interest there, or is that arrangement o.k. with you?

Thank you for your time,
Ron

P.S. I also posted this e-mail on my blog. It's at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/01/askin-questions-and-makin-quotas.html

- - -

TO: Jan Di Leo, SLO County Parks Planner
DATE: 1/26/10

Hello Jan,

Real quick...

On the agenda for this Thursday's Parks Commission meeting, it reads:

"Proposal from San Luis Obispo Botanical Gardens – Dave Porter (7:00)"

Please e-mail me the staff report for that item, and the proposal.

Thanks again,
Ron

###

[Four weeks down... 48 to go.]

The Great San Los Osobispo Botanical Sewer Garden Project

TO: Roman Porter, Executive Director, California Fair Political Practices Commission
DATE: 1/20/10

Dear Fair Political Practices Commission,

I'm filing this complaint with you, because I think I may have come across a violation of this:

[Govt Code 87100 et seq]: "No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest."

... in San Luis Obispo County government.

It involves the 2nd District Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner.

Nash-Karner is also on the Board of Directors for another local organization, The San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden.

Here's the link:

http://www.slobg.org/BoardOfDirectors.htm

That facility is currently planning a "$20 million" expansion, according to their web site:

http://www.slobg.org/CaseStatement06.htm

I recently called the San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden, and spoke with their executive director, Liz Scott-Graham.

I asked her if her organization had received any proposals from firms interested in building the expansion.

She said, "Yes. One."

I asked her if the firm that gave that proposal was the SWA Group.

She said, "Yes."

The reason I already knew to ask if it was the SWA Group that gave that proposal, is because I wrote a story a few months back, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/07/exclusive-sewerwatch-investigation-how.html

... where I showed how, starting in 1998, Nash-Karner, along with her husband, Gary Karner, created (from their home) a public works project -- a sewer project -- and then heavily marketed that made-up project to the voters of Los Osos throughout 1998.

It worked.

The Karners were able to use their fabricated "better, cheaper, faster" sewer project as the "basis" to form the Los Osos Community Services District. In that same election, November 1998, Nash-Karner, a marketing professional, was also elected to the District's initial Board of Directors.

Incidentally, the Karners’ "better, cheaper, faster" sewer project never worked, of course, as predicted by numerous government agencies, long before the November 1998 election.

In a 1997 document, at this link:

http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/AssetFactory.aspx?did=11875

... created by the Karners, that outlines their “project,” it reads:

"(We are) deeply indebted to the following firms and individuals who have contributed their services in developing this Plan at pro-bono or reduced rates... We recommend (these) firms be retained for professional design services when this Plan is accepted."

Note the use of the word "when," in, "... when this Plan Is accepted." That was in 1997, a full year before the 1998 election.

And, one of the firms "recommended" by the Karners to be "retained for professional design services" "when" their project was "accepted?"

"SWA Group, of Sausalito, California"

According to documents, Gary Karner was a "Managing Principal and Senior Project Manager" for the SWA Group, "for 27 years and is currently retained by SWA."

In the same document where Karner writes:

"We recommend (these) firms be retained for professional design services when this Plan is accepted... SWA Group, of Sausal¡to, California"

... he never once discloses his financial interest in the SWA Group.

Shortly after the formation of the LOCSD, with Pandora Nash-Karner as its vice-president, official District documents associated with the sewer project read, "SWA Group."

That exact same scenario is playing out today, at the San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden, and that is precisely why I already knew to ask Scott-Graham if their "one" proposal came from Karner's SWA Group.

Yes, it did. (Think about that for a moment... I already knew who gave the proposal before she even told me.)

Nash-Karner has infiltrated (strangely, a near-perfect use of that word) another local agency that's proposing a multi-million dollar project, and the one (so, far as I know) proposal to build the project came from Karner's SWA Group, with his wife (and SLO County Parks Commissioner), Pandora Nash-Karner, on that agency's Board of Directors, yet, again, the Karners' financial interest in the SWA Group, was, apparently, never revealed.

I asked Scott-Graham if she thought that there might be a conflict of interest in having Gary Karner's firm submit a proposal for a $20 million expansion, while his wife was on the BOD.

She said, "No."

According to the Minutes of 2009 SLO County Parks Commission meeting, at this link:

http://www.slocountyparks.com/information/pcommprevmeetmins.htm

"Commissioner Nash-Karner... said that on September 27, 2009 the SLO Botanical Garden celebration would be at El Chorro Park."

and;

"Commissioner Nash-Karner... said there will be two weeks of talks on the Botanical Garden development from May 1-15;"

and;

"Commissioner Mathews... mentioned the SLO Botanic Garden is attempting to obtain a grant..."

I'm requesting that the Fair Political Practices Commission please determine if there's a violation of Govt Code 87100 by investigating San Luis Obispo County 2nd District Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, and her ties with the San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden, and her husband's SWA Group.

Also, as long as we're on this subject, in those same SLO County Parks Commission meeting Minutes, it reads:

"Commissioner Nash-Karner said a meeting of stakeholders will take place soon to discuss putting together a survey to determine the need for an aquatic center on the north coast. Also stated that the Celebrate Los Osos group is now a 501 (c) 3 and looks forward to working with County Parks on various projects."

and;

"Commissioner Nash-Karner reported that there are now two non-profit groups working on pool development in the Los Osos/Morro Bay communities; "

According to sources, Nash-Karner founded both "Celebrate Los Osos" AND "The Los Osos Pool Association," and, of course, that fact is not disclosed in the meeting Minutes.

While you are investigating her San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden/2nd District Parks Commissioner/SWA Group ties, please also investigate her 2nd District Parks Commissioner/Celebrate Los Osos/Los Osos Pool Association ties.

Thank you for your time.

###

Oh, the Irony: SewerWatch Doesn't Care About the Los Osos Sewer Project

As if it matters, but, I'd like to take a couple of minutes to clear up what I think might be a misconception (and also make my "at least weekly" quota):

I don't care about the Los Osos sewer project... at all.

I couldn't care less what sewer project Los Osos builds, or even IF they build one. I simply don't care.

Other than Ann Calhoun's great blog, and here at SewerWatch, I don't post anywhere else on this subject... BECAUSE I don't care. [Quick note: If you happen to read an anonymous comment on another web site, involving Los Osos, and you think it's me, it's not. I know bringing that up sounds a little weird, but you'd be surprised how often I hear that, so I want to address it. To be clear, I don't care enough about the Los Osos sewer project to post anywhere else.]

What I DO care about is the amazing Los Osos sewer project story, and, more specifically, MY amazing Los Osos sewer project story -- the one I've been covering since 1990, and, even more on point, the specific story I've been covering since 2004, when I first exposed, in a New Times cover story, how the local Los Osos government was building a wildly unpopular, multi-million dollar sewer plant in the middle of town, yet there was no documentable reason -- no "substantial evidence" -- whatsoever for why they were doing that, and, right now, today, in 2010, that 2004 story, remarkably, is 100-percent relevant, and still totally unresolved.

[That leaves me shaking my head. It took five years, a successful recall election, State legislation, and three years worth of County analysis, to finally show that Three Blocks was 100-percent right, just like I knew all along, and now, no government official will admit it!

"It is not necessary to bury the truth. It is sufficient merely to delay it until nobody cares."
-- Attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte]

So, basically (and, yes, this probably sounds a little cold), but, all I'm interested in these days is getting my 6-year-old story resolved -- That lazy government officials failed to do their job, and, because they failed to do their job, they approved an illegal public works project in 2003/4, and then that led to massive delays in implementing that project, and, now, those same State agencies, instead of admitting they f-d up, are now prosecuting innocent people due to the delays associated with them approving an illegal project, and those State agencies now know, due exclusively to my reporting, that those people are innocent, yet, they're still going to continue with their enforcement, using lawyers from the Attorney General's office, in an effort to deflect the blame away from the lazy State agencies.

The story is amazing, and its amazing-ness has absolutely nothing to do with the nuts-and-bolts of a sewer project, and EVERYTHING to do with lazy government agencies not doing their job, and then that leading to tens -- if not hundreds -- of millions of dollars in public funds going down the drain, and, in the process, ripping the community fabric of a small town into tiny, little, itsy-bitsy shreds, and, also, what happens when the media falls asleep, and simply turns into a bullhorn for agenda-driven types.

One beautiful, universal theme after another is found in this great story.

So to summarize, I don't care about the Los Osos sewer project... at all.

I only care about the Los Osos sewer project story, and resolving the things that I first exposed, using original reporting. (I mean, c'mon, can you blame me?)

Things like:

"Bait and switchy":

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/08/to-paraphrase-ann-calhoun-paraphrasing.html

Fake "strongly held community values"/"Statement of Overriding Considerations":

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-slo-county-governments-laziness.html

Innocent people being prosecuted by State attorneys, when those State attorneys NOW know those people are innocent

Behavior-based-marketing, and its dramatic impacts:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/05/she-is-los-osos.html

One government agency after another getting lazy, and allowing themselves to be "Jedi mind-tricked" BY behavior-based-marketing :

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/05/she-is-los-osos.html

Two people -- a husband and wife team -- starting a new government agency using a fabricated, "better, cheaper, faster" sewer "project," just so they could make money off of that new government agency, and, in the process, rip a town to shreds, and not give a flip:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/07/exclusive-sewerwatch-investigation-how.html

THAT's what motivates me today, to finally get all of that original, beautiful, time-stamped reporting resolved. (Well, that, AND making my "at least weekly" quota.)

But, STEP/STEG? Pipe diameter? Treatment process?

I really, really don't care... and never have.

###

[Three weeks down... 49 to go.]

Fillin' Holes (and Makin' Quotas)

TO: Dan Carl, District Manager, California Coastal Commission Central Coast office
SUBJECT: Holes in My Los Osos Story
DATE: January 14, 2010

Hello Dan,

I'm researching a story that involves the Los Osos wastewater project, and I was hoping you could help me fill some holes in my story.

I recently came across a CCC staff report that reads, in part:

"Background (of the Los Osos wastewater project): ... the Commission conducted four public hearings on the project between 1997 and 1998. The Commission continued action on the County project at least in part to provide the community with an opportunity to pursue alternatives. A November 1998 local ballot measure formed the Los Osos Community Services District (LOCSD). At that time, the project favored by the elected district members was a ponding system at the downtown Tri-W site (now referred to as the Mid-town site) located at Ravenna Avenue and Los Osos Valley Road. The ponding system was later rejected."

According to my research, that's not entirely accurate, and it's a very, very critical point.

The "ponding system at the downtown Tri-W site," that was "favored by the elected district members," in 1998, wasn't so much "rejected," as much as it just flat-out failed. As you might know, that project was actually pursued by the newly elected Los Osos CSD for nearly two years... and then it failed.

You can get a feel of what I'm talking about in that same staff report I mention above. It's in the timeline.

For example, the report states:

"A November 1998 local ballot measure formed the Los Osos Community Services District (LOCSD). At that time, the project favored by the elected district members was a ponding system..."

and, then it states:

"On March 1, 2001, the LOCSD certified a Final EIR for an alternative project involving a conventional treatment system at the Tri-W site."

The ponding system failed in... well, no one really knows when it failed. That critical point is actually STILL shrouded in mystery. I authored a cover story for SLO County's weekly newspaper back in mid-2000 that showed how the ponding project was on the verge of failing, and about a month after my story was published, I learned at a LOCSD meeting, from a very quick, and very quiet announcement, that the ponding project had failed, just like I reported it would. However, I have since uncovered other documents that show that the District stopped pursuing the ponding project as early as the fall of 1999, yet deliberately misled the public (and the media) that they had actually switched to "an alternative project involving a conventional treatment system at the Tri-W site."

For example, my story, Problems with the Solution, was published in June 2000. In that story, former LOCSD vice-president, Pandora Nash-Karner, says, "We’re confident that this (ponding system) is the most appropriate and most environmentally friendly plan. And we will be able to build it faster (than the county could have)."

About a month after that story was published -- around the fall of 2000 -- I learned at a District meeting that the ponding project had officially failed -- after nearly two years of development.

So, check this out, it's great... look at what your staff report states:

"On March 1, 2001, the LOCSD certified a Final EIR for an alternative project involving a conventional treatment system at the Tri-W site."

March 1, 2001?

I don't understand.

According to Nash-Karner, the LOCSD was "confident" that their ponding project was "the most appropriate and most environmentally friendly plan" in the summer of 2000.

So, according to the Coastal Commission's "Background," the 2000 - 01 Los Osos CSD was able to develop a Final EIR, in just a few months after the ponding project failed? A FEIR for "an alternative project involving a conventional treatment system," that included an entirely different treatment facility AND collection system than the ponding project?

Doesn't that sound a little hasty to you? It always has to me.

For example, the County, for its current project, spent over three years to do the exact same thing, following the failure of the District's SECOND project, the hastily developed "alternative project involving a conventional treatment system at the Tri-W site," in 2005.

So, the LOCSD was able to do in as little as six months -- late 2000 to early 2001 -- what took the County over three years to do: develop a Final EIR for an alternative sewer project in Los Osos?

That doesn't sound right. Your "Background" timeline on your official documents doesn't seem to make sense.

Could you please help me fill that hole in my story? What happened there? Did the 2001 LOCSD really accomplish a FEIR for their "conventional," "alternative" project in just a few months? If so, how did they do it?

Dan, it gets worse.

Not only did that ponding project fail (again, it wasn't "rejected"), its failure was predicted. And, not only was its failure predicted, it was predicted by the staff of the California Coastal Commission, BEFORE "the November 1998 local ballot measure (that) formed the Los Osos Community Services District."

As I first exposed, an October 1998, Costal Commission document that analyzed the LOCSD's ponding system, reads:

"The State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards have emphasized that approval of the County project, rather than further pursuit of the (ponding system) alternative, is the preferable alternative in terms of water quality protection."

and;

"Pursuit of the (ponding system) alternative also has the potential to result in significant delays to the implementation of a wastewater treatment project for the Los Osos area."

So, here are some of the holes in my story that I'm trying to fill:

-- How does the Coastal Commission explain how the LOCSD was able to accomplish a FEIR for their second, "conventional" project in just a few months?

-- Please explain how the delays associated with the project aren't the fault of the 1998 Commission, considering they ruled against staff's recommendation, and kept delaying meetings throughout 1998 "to provide the community with an opportunity to pursue alternatives," when the 1998 Commission was provided with a huge stack of excellent evidence, long before November of 1998, that showed that the "alternative" wasn't going to work?

Also, can your office please supply me with the "substantial evidence in the record" (according to CEQA) that the CCC used to support the "Statement of Overriding Consideration" found in the FEIR for the Tri-W project?

And, finally, if it's not too much trouble, in future staff reports, could you please change the "Background" information on this subject, from:

"The ponding system was later rejected."

to;

"After nearly two years of development, the ponding system failed in late 2000 (as predicted by Commission staff in October 1998)."

That's much, MUCH more accurate.

Thank you for your time,
Ron

###

[Two weeks down... 50 to go.]

The Pulitzer Prize Board eases eligibility for online-only entries

[Press release from the Pulitzer Prize Board]

New York, Dec. 2, 2009 – The eligibility rules for the Pulitzer Prizes in journalism have been revised, opening the door wider to entries from text-based online-only newspapers and news sites, the Pulitzer Prize Board announced today.

A year ago, the Board broadened the competition to include many United States news outlets that publish only on the Internet at least weekly, but it required that all entered material—whether online or in print—had to come from entities “primarily dedicated to original news reporting and coverage of ongoing events.”

The Pulitzer Board decided to eliminate that entry requirement at its November meeting at Columbia University.

The requirement sometimes excluded possibly promising entries—notably by online columnists, critics and bloggers—because of the nature of their Web affiliation, according to Sig Gissler, administrator of the Prizes.

“The revised rule will provide more flexibility as we focus on the merit of an entry rather than the mission of the Web site where it appeared,” Gissler said.

Original reporting and coverage of ongoing events will remain central considerations in the prizes for reporting and writing.

Consistent with its historic focus on daily and weekly newspapers, the Board will continue to exclude entries from magazines and broadcast media and their respective Web sites.

The revised eligibility rule now reads:

“Entries for journalism awards must be based on material coming from a text-based United States newspaper or news site that publishes at least weekly during the calendar year and that adheres to the highest journalistic principles. Magazines and broadcast media, and their respective Web sites, are not eligible.”

The Board will continue to monitor developments in digital journalism, Gissler said.

In 1999, the Pulitzer Prizes first allowed online content in its journalism competition, restricting it to online content from newspapers entering in the Public Service category.

In the 2007 competition, online content from newspaper Web sites was permitted in all Pulitzer journalism categories, but online-only news sites were not allowed to submit entries, and entirely-online entries were permitted in only two categories, breaking news coverage and breaking-news photography.

In 2009, online-only sites that publish at least weekly were eligible for the competition, provided they met the original-reporting requirement. The Board also allowed entries made up entirely of online content to be submitted in all 14 Pulitzer journalism categories.

- - -

“Entries for journalism awards must be based on material coming from a text-based United States newspaper or news site that publishes at least weekly during the calendar year..."

One week down, 51 to go.

###