Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Quota Made

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

Dear Supervisor Gibson,

Are the Parks Commission meetings recorded?

Thank you,


[Five weeks down... 47 to go.]


  • A SewerWatch tradition: My annual Super Bowl pick...

    Gotta go with the Colts on this one. That complex, efficient, super precise offense makes it very, very difficult to defend.

    Colts: 34
    Saints: 23

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:14 AM, February 06, 2010  

  • Well, Ron at the end of the first quarter, the spread (10-0 points) is heading in your favor.

    By Blogger Alon Perlman, at 4:11 PM, February 07, 2010  

  • And 14 the other way.
    (i havnt kept up with the rankings this year, what was the Vagus spread?)

    By Blogger Alon Perlman, at 6:48 PM, February 07, 2010  

  • Now I know why I don't gamble, Alon. It'd drive me crazy.

    Ohhhhh... so close.

    Just before Manning threw that pick, I was actually bragging about how close MY pick was going to be.

    If he throws a TD there (instead of the pick-6), it would have been 24-24. Indy gets the ball back in OT, another Colts TD = Colts 30 Saints 24.

    Now, I'm 1-3 over the last four, and I'm this close -- this close I'm tellin' ya -- to being 4-0.

    I picked AZ to upset Pittsburgh last year, and, if not for the pick-6 (99 yards!) by Warner at the end of the first half, I would have nailed that one, and two years ago, I went with New England, and, if not for that miracle pass by E. Manning at the end of the game, I'd of nailed that one too.

    Congrats to the Saints, though, huh?

    By Blogger Ron, at 9:20 AM, February 08, 2010  

  • Ron,

    Wrong game analogy, but you're batting zero(0)here.

    How's are those FPPC and DA complaits applications goin' for ya?

    Even though you claim not a betting man, I betcha' ten U.S. dollars ($10) that both the FPPC and DA reject your current crop of complaints. Care to take my (sucker) bet?

    Didn't think so

    By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 9:35 AM, February 08, 2010  

  • A "Richard LeGros" wrote:

    "How's are those FPPC and DA complaits applications goin' for ya?

    A heck of lot better than my Super Bowl picks!

    DA one isn't filed yet. (I'm getting the run-around from County officials [imagine that] on the info I need to file that complaint. For example, I'm not even 100-percent sure that Parks Commission meetings even fall under the Brown Act. If they do, I'll have a kick-ass complaint. If they don't, then, there goes my argument.)

    As for my beautiful FPPC complaint... so far as I know, they're still processing it. But, hey, if the FPPC doesn't see a conflict of interest in the fact that Pandora sits on the Parks Commission AND the SLO Botanical Garden BOD (a facility that leases county-owned land and works closely with the Parks Commission ), where she takes one proposal from her husband's landscaping firm for a $20 million project... on county-owned land, and then that scam is the EXACT same scam they used when they formed the LOCSD in 1998 for no reason whatsoever (other than to cash fat checks for several years) -- if the FPPC doesn't see a problem there, then they don't see a problem there.

    All I can do is point it out to them.

    It sure sounds like a problematic arrangement to me... but I'm not the FPPC.

    I asked Supervisor Gibson if HE thought there might be a conflict of interest there, but, of course, he never replied, so, I guess he's good with it.

    I'll be sure to remind voters of that (over, and over, and over again) this election season.

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:37 AM, February 08, 2010  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 11:38 AM, February 08, 2010  

  • Ron,

    I am so happy you are staying busy filing your super-tight AND beautiful complaints.
    Just remember the high school Physics 101 axiom though...Motion is not Work!

    I take it you accept my friendly $10 bet? Or are you not so sure that your super-duper complaint has merit? Don't be shy here; put you moola where your boca is.

    FYI: When the complaint is denied, please do not moan and groan that the DA and FPPC are 'obviously' super corrupt,stupid or incompetent regarding conflict of intrest laws by their not accepting your complaint; or that Pandora strong-armed the government to do her bidding with her amazing gorilla marketing persuasion powers over others.

    Another FYI: In the future, try SECRETELY filing your complaint; RECEIVE the FPPC's and DA's complaint acceptance notification that they will investigate the complaint; and THEN tell us how what a super smart guy you are to have filed such well thought out complaint. That way you avoid setting yourself up (again) for failure and ridicule!

    By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 11:41 AM, February 08, 2010  

  • A "RL" wrote:

    "That way you avoid setting yourself up (again) for failure and ridicule!

    I know... I know... I expose the fact that a local government official has a gigantic conflict of interest, and I'M the bad guy.

    Welcome to Los Osos.

    By the way, it's not that I don't trust my nails-tight complaints -- I do... they're bad-ass -- it's that I don't trust the DA's office OR the FPPC to do the right thing. (Ya know, if you think my FPPC complaint all the way through, Governor S. comes into play, and in not-such-a good way.)

    If they decide not to investigate, well, there ya go.

    How's this? I'll betcha a 12-ver of Heineken that the SWA Group doesn't get that $20 million gig... that they were about to get.

    1 mo' thing, Rich:

    I noticed (here, and on Ann's blog), that this:

    "Comment deleted

    This post has been removed by the author."

    ... shows up a lot right above your name.

    If you notice, there's a "Preview" button below that allows you to preview what your post will look like... BEFORE you publish it, and, if you want to change something, you can do it then... BEFORE you hit the "Publish" button... THEN read what you wrote... then say, "D'oh!"... and then delete it, change it and then re-post it... over and over again.

    I'm just sayin'... feel free to mix in the "Preview" button... for a change.

    By Blogger Ron, at 1:24 PM, February 08, 2010  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 2:19 PM, February 08, 2010  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 2:20 PM, February 08, 2010  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 2:20 PM, February 08, 2010  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 2:21 PM, February 08, 2010  

  • LOL Ron!

    You do not 'trust' the DA or FPPC to 'do what is 'right

    What a heap of baloney you are piling on here, Ron!

    Either your complaint is valid or not. The FPPC and DA will 'do what is right' if your complaint is valid.

    For example, the TW complaint was accepted by the FPPC.
    The FPPC is actively investigating the complaint as I blog.
    Why was the TW complaint accepted? The complaint was accepted as TW based its complaint on real/valid evidence and real/valid law.

    Your offering them a smelly potpourri of speculation does not make a valid complaint.

    In language you can understand....No valid pointies, no valid complainties.

    Meanwhile, do you accept my $10 bet?
    If you do not, then you obviously do not believe in the validity of your own complaint! LOL

    By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 2:21 PM, February 08, 2010  

  • So Richard, do you approve of Pandora's part in Ron's complaint?
    Sincerely, M

    By Blogger M, at 3:29 PM, February 08, 2010  

  • M,

    I have already answered that question.
    Refer to my 11:28PM post of January 29, 2010, in Ron's prior post string (below.)

    By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 4:12 PM, February 08, 2010  

  • LOL Ron.....

    As your FPPC complaint is so 'bad-ass' and 'nails-tight', then take the $10 bet!

    You know that real 'bad-ass' and 'nails-tight' complaints about governmental corruption ARE readily accepted by the FPPC...............just look at the SEVEN (7) FPPC complaints filed by TW that were ALL accepted and being investigated by the FPPC.
    You can trust the FPPC to 'do what is right', and fine and prosecute those being investigated too.

    So come on...take the bet!
    Or are you just all squawks while striking silly poses!

    By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 10:02 AM, February 09, 2010  

  • A "RL" wrote:

    "You do not 'trust' the DA or FPPC to 'do what is 'right"

    I'll be damned, you finally got something right... almost. You mangled the quote. (Wow, after all of those "comment deleted"s... and you still f-d it up. Nice.)

    The lazy State agencies, the Gov's silly, embarrassing AB 2701 "signing statement," just on and on... yep, I don't have a lot of trust in the State's FPPC right about now.

    In fact, that's WHY I published my complaint before they even reviewed it. It's my hunch that they're going to not investigate, so, by publishing it, at least we get to have this fun discussion, eh, "Richard?"

    By the way, I don't see your answer to M's excellent question.

    Are you o.k. with this arrangement?:

    ... where Pandora Nash-Karner is 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."

    What do you think of that?

    And, before you answer, I want to copy-and-paste something from my Huge File-O-Quotes:

    "Pandora Nash Karner has absolutely no affiliations with; and absolutely no input into; the Taxpayer's Watch organization at all. Neither now or in the past. Period. Those folks that claim Pandora is part of the Taxpayer's Watch organization are are incorrect and uninformed. After this post, those that continue saying she is affiliated with Taxpayer's Watch are lying."
    -- Richard LeGros, February 27, 2009

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:47 AM, February 09, 2010  

  • LOL Ron,

    You clucked (like a chicken):
    “In fact, that's WHY I published my complaint before they even reviewed it. It's my hunch that they're going to not investigate, so, by publishing it, at least we get to have this fun discussion, eh, "Richard?"

    Let me get this straight (faced:

    THEN (just a few days ago) you were crowing how your ‘nails-tight’ FPPC complaint would be accepted and investigated by the FPPC; and you filed the FPPC complain in order to ‘expose government corruption’.

    NOW you cluck that you have always had a ‘hunch’ that your FPPC complaint would be rejected; and you just filed the complaint to get your ‘opinion’ heard for ‘discussion purposes’ on your blog site?

    SO WHAT IS IT…were YOU LYING TO US THEN about your intent? Or are YOU LYING TO US NOW about your intent?
    Either way, you’re being dishonest.

    As for filing the FPPC complaint to get your ‘opinion’ out for ‘discussion’; I say GEE GOLLY WHIZ RON, YOU COULD HAVE VOICED YOUR ‘OPINION’ WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE EMBARRASSMENT OF FILING A FRAUDULENT FPPC COMPLAINT TO BEGIN WITH!; and not look so idiotic in doing so too.

    ADITIONALLY, in that you acknowledge you filed a FPPC complaint in the attempt to boost ‘discussion’ on you blog site, why YOU WASTING TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO HAVE THE FPPC SPEND TIME AND MONEY REVIEWING YOUR BOGUS COMPLAINT?

    Filing your bogus FPPC complaint sure sounds like DEFRAUDING THE TAXPAYER for your personal gain to me!

    To top off your scrumptious FPPC complaint sundae (with a cherry on top!), you NOW are so obviously embarrassed with your idiotic behavior that you are trying to DEFLECT the entire mess by raising other non-relevant topics!

    Well Ron, this mess is all about your not-very-well-thought-out FPPC complaint; and I am calling you out on it. TAKE THE $10 BET!

    By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 1:34 PM, February 09, 2010  

  • I get leary of listening to some body who was not long ago recalled from political office, recently in bankrupt proceedings, now living in Cabrillo Estates which of course is exempt from any discussion about the sewer. To hear you go on about everything governmental as though you have full knowledge about every aspect of local and federal law, state law and what have you leads me to the conclusion that somebody with that knowledge uses it to circumvent and work the law to their favor. Just my opinion.
    And Ron is right. You didn't really answer my question. And are you actually saying that the County "could" grant 20 million to the Botanical Gardens? While Los Osos has actually been granted what, $10,000, 15,000, 100,000? For a mandated sewer?
    Sincerely, M

    By Blogger M, at 3:53 PM, February 09, 2010  

  • GMG M...

    ....I was recalled...not sent to Siberia never to be seen or heard from again. This is America, you know.

    I have a long history of community involvement in Los Osos. Regardless of the recall, past unfortunate financial circumstance or where I live, I have every right to say whatever I please to whomever I please. Or does the US Constitution and Bill of Rights only apply to folks that you approve of? LOL

    You are correct that I know a great deal about the process of government. I consider that knowledge strength; and a benefit to you and Ron too.
    For example, as you and Ron acknowledge that I have knowledge about such matters, Ron could have had asked what is required for an FPPC complaint to be taken seriously; and to be acceptable too.
    He didn't; and instead filed his flawed complaint.
    I have only pointed out why he would/has fail(ed). That he is being such a baby about failing, again, is his problem.

    Additionally, for you to 'conclude' (from some mysterious font of wisdom known only to you) that my 'knowledge of government' means that I (and folks like me) wield that knowledge specifically to abuse government is, ahem, not only illogical, but downright silly; but that is only the humble opinion from one recalled and sent to M's oblivion.

    Odd that you respect and acknowledge my 'knowledge' yet chastise me simultaneously about possessing it.

    PS: Your 'question' has already been answered. Sorry you do not like the answer. That's a YP, not a MP.

    By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 7:02 PM, February 09, 2010  

  • Yikes, Richard.

    If I didn't know better, I'd say I'm awwwfullly close to a nerve.

    How's this feel?

    From my Huge File-O-Quotes:

    "Additional Endorsements for Richard LeGros: Pandora Nash-Karner"
    -- SmartVoter.org, November 2002

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:50 AM, February 10, 2010  

  • I don't remember saying I respected that knowledge.
    After I posted previously, I started thinking why am I attacking him. I will not do it anymore.
    By the way what does "GMG" stand for?
    Sincerely, M

    By Blogger M, at 11:57 AM, February 10, 2010  

  • Ron,

    You silly man.
    Believe whatever you want. I does not matter; just like everything else you do. LOL

    Typo; OMG, not GMG

    By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 1:38 PM, February 10, 2010  

  • Yo, Ricky....

    I'm kinda busy right now, so I haven't gotten around to posting it (but I will)... I just read the FPPC's 2/8/10 letter to Lisa, regarding your guys' bitter-because-you-lost-an-election complaint.

    And I wanted to pop in here real quick to be the first to say: "Ha ha!"

    You know what one of your guys' many problems is? Your timing sucks.

    After I post it, I'll be sure to Ying/Yang it with some of your quotes above.

    Hil... ar... i... ous!

    By Blogger Ron, at 11:27 AM, February 11, 2010  

Post a Comment

<< Home