Goin' for Brown Act History

[Note: The following e-mail is to Terry Francke, founder of Californians Aware.

According to his bio, "Francke previously served 14 years as executive director and general counsel for the California First Amendment Coalition, after a 10-year post as legal counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association.

Francke has fielded tens of thousands of phoned and e-mailed queries on press and citizen rights, taught journalism law at the Department of Communication at Stanford University, and served as an expert contributor to the 1994 major revisions to the Ralph M. Brown Act.

Since 1980 Francke has been helping journalists, citizens and public officials understand and use their First Amendment, open government and public information rights."]

Dear Mr. Francke,

I think you are going to find this (rather lengthy) e-mail very interesting, because it involves potentially making Brown Act history.

Recently, I (and, by extension, the rest of the public) was the victim of at least two apparent, and egregious, violations of the Brown Act by the San Luis Obispo County Parks Commission, and I have filed a complaint with the SLO County District Attorney's office asking them to investigate. A spokesperson from their office told me that they are, "Looking into it."

The reason I'm writing you today, is because I came across this web site:

http://altadenans.com/current-issues/terry-francke-foremost-authority-on-the-brown-act-speaks-on-atcs-actions/

... that cites you as stating:

"As for criminal prosecution, there have been about five or six initiated in the Brown Act’s (57) year history. Only one went to trial, and it resulted in a hung jury. A conviction imposes on the prosecution a proof burden nearly unique in the law: that the member attended a meeting at which a violation occurred, and did so knowing that the violation was occurring, and intending that the public be deprived of information it is entitled to by law."

That's exactly what happened with my case, and therefore I've also asked the DA's office that they prosecute my case as a criminal violation of the Brown Act.

If they do, there's a chance -- and, considering the circumstances, a very good chance, in my opinion, at least -- that my case would be the first case in the history of the Brown Act to get a criminal conviction, and if any case deserves a criminal conviction, it's this one, as you're about to read.

Here are the details (and, it's my guess, that when it comes to Brown Act violations, you have probably seen it all, but I'm willing to bet, you've never seen this):

A current San Luis Obispo County Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, also currently sits on the Board of Directors for a local non-profit agency, the San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden.

That facility -- that leases county-owned land -- is planning a "$20 million" expansion, and, as I first exposed in a recent investigative piece, published on my blog, at this link:

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

... the one proposal the SLO Botanical Garden received to design the expansion was from the SWA Group, where Nash-Karner's husband, Gary Karner, is a "Managing Principal and Senior Project Manager for 27 years and is currently retained by SWA," according to his bio.

Shortly after I published that piece on 1/20/10, I noticed that on the Parks Commission meeting agenda for January 28, was this item:

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

Here's where it gets interesting... er.

When I first spotted that posted agenda item, it was something like five days before the meeting. However, I know that the Brown Act requires that a "posted" item's agenda packet be available for public inspection "72 hours" before the meeting. So, I deliberately -- I want to repeat that, because it is a very important point -- I deliberately waited until within the 72 hour requirement before I requested, from Parks Commission staff, a copy of the staff report for Item #8. As you can imagine, after publishing my investigative piece, I was extremely interested in finding out what that "proposal" was.

On the morning of 1/26/10, well within the "72 hour" Brown Act requirement for the January 28 meeting, I sent SLO County Parks Planner, Jan Di Leo, this e-mail:

- - -
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
- - -

After not receiving a reply for 24 hours (even though I had received prompt e-mail replies from her previously) I sent Ms. Di Leo another e-mail on the morning of 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... 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
- - -

The next morning, on 1/28/10 -- the day of the meeting -- Ms. Di Leo 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 the agenda and the report (if there is one).

Jan Di Leo
Parks Planner
SLO County Parks
- - -

Please note, Ms. Di Leo writes, "I believe Dave Porter was simply coming to give a report," when Item 8 clearly says, "proposal." Then, Ms. Di Leo writes, "Our web site has the Parks Commission... staff reports," when it does not.

That was egregious Brown Act violation #1.

[54954.2. (a) At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session.

54954.1. Any person may request that a copy of the agenda, or a copy of all the documents constituting the agenda packet [bolding mine], of any meeting of a legislative body be mailed to that person.]

Gets better.

Egregious Brown Act violation #2, in this case, is the one I'm willing to bet that you've never seen before. It goes like this:

Shortly after the January 28 meeting, I sent a public records request to Parks' staff for a copy of the recording for that meeting.

What I discovered on that recording left me shaking my head.

Here's what transpired at the 1/28/10 SLO County Parks Commission meeting:

First, the agenda order on the recording was different than that of both the posted agenda, and even the agenda order listed in the minutes, at this link:

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

For example, on the agenda (and minutes) Item #2 was:

- - -
2. Nominations and Election of Commission Chair and Vice-Chair. Commissioner Nash-Karner nominated Commissioner Hilton for Chairman, seconded by Commissioner Mathews. Motion passed 4-0. Commissioner Hilton nominated Commissioner Gonzales for Vice-Chairman, seconded by Commissioner Nash-Karner. Motion passed 4-0.
- - -

However, on the recording, that agenda item is not #2. It's Item #7 (for reasons I'm not clear on), and here's why that appears to be a HUGE problem.

Immediately after that motion passed, I can hear the sound of applause from the people in attendance -- which, apparently, consisted of the Commissioners, Parks' staff, and one member of the public -- congratulating Hilton on his election to the Chair.

I can also hear Hilton say, "I'll take the gavel."

Then, immediately after the gavel was passed to Hilton -- after he was now the Chair, and, therefore responsible for how the meeting was conducted -- Commissioner Nash-Karner says, "Um, I forgot to mention earlier, that Item #8 has been deferred until February."

Then, Hilton pauses, and says, "O.K."

Then, Nash-Karner says, "So, Item #9 is all yours."

Then, Hilton says, "So with that, we have Item #9..."

After listening to the recording, I e-mailed Hilton this question:

"Considering that Nash-Karner 'forgot to mention' that Item #8 had been 'deferred,' shouldn't Item #8 have been your first official item to discuss, and not Item #9?

With this quote:

'Um, I forgot to mention earlier, that Item #8 has been deferred until February.'

... it seems like she acted as the Chair, AFTER you were elected Chair."

He never replied to my question.

And to cap all of this off, Item #8 was NOT "deferred until February," of course, nor was it on the March Parks Commission meeting agenda.

As of today, March 30, Item #8 has simply disappeared, the moment after I started inquiring about it, and not only will I now never know the contents of that "proposal," but neither will you, or a judge, or a jury, or the public... as they are "entitled to by law."

So, to recap:

- I published an investigative piece where I showed that San Luis Obispo County Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, also sits on the Board of Directors of a local non-profit agency, the San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden -- a facility that leases county-owned land, and is planning a "$20 million" expansion, and the one proposal they've received to design the expansion was from the SWA Group, where Nash-Karner's husband, Gary Karner, is a "Managing Principal and Senior Project Manager for 27 years and is currently retained by SWA," according to his bio.

- Then, just a few days after I published that piece, I noticed on the Parks Commission meeting agenda for January 28, this item: "8. Proposal from San Luis Obispo Botanical Gardens – Dave Porter (7:00)"

- Then, I deliberately waited until within the 72 hour Brown Act posting requirement before (twice) asking Parks' staff for a copy of the staff report for Item #8.

- Then, on the day of the meeting -- two days after my initial inquiry, and with Item #8 STILL posted on the agenda -- a SLO County Parks staff member wrote to me, "That item was continued until February 25, 2010. At this point there is no report."

- Then, at the meeting that night, the former Chair of the Parks Commission, and current Director for the SLO Botanical Garden, Pandora Nash-Karner, said, "Um, I forgot to mention earlier, that Item #8 has been deferred until February."

- Then, Item #8 did NOT appear on the February meeting agenda, or the March meeting agenda.

- And, now, because of all of those apparent, and egregious, Brown Act violations, the public will never know the contents of the "proposal" from Item #8.

You wrote, that for a criminal violation of the Brown Act to have occurred:

"That the member attended a meeting at which a violation occurred, and did so knowing that the violation was occurring..."

Commissioner Nash-Karner has been on the Parks Commission for nearly 20 years. Furthermore, she was also a Los Osos CSD Director from 1998 - 2000, where she received formal Brown Act training. So, considering her nearly quarter century as a public official, if anyone's going to know that they are violating the Brown Act, it's her. Clearly, she KNEW she was violating the Brown Act with Item #8, at a meeting she "attended."

and;

"... intending that the public be deprived of information it is entitled to by law."

Mr. Francke, "the public" -- including me and you -- will never know the contents of the "proposal" from Item #8. Never.

Finally, there's another reason why I wanted to make you aware of all of this -- other than I thought you would find my case very interesting, because of its Brown Act history making-ness.

As you've probably noticed, my complaint involves a SLO County government agency, and I've filed my complaint with the SLO County DA's office, another SLO County government agency. In other words, I'm asking the SLO County DA's office to criminally prosecute another SLO County agency, and my research shows that the SLO County District Attorney, Gerald Shea, evidently, is on a long time, first-name basis with Pandora Nash-Karner, of course.

So, if my case gets all weird, and conflicted, and the DA's office doesn't do the right thing, I will be bringing my case to the California First Amendment Coalition for attention, and I wanted to give you a "heads-up" on my case, in the event it comes to that.

If you have any comments, or questions, involving my case, I would be very interested in hearing them.

Thank you very much for your time,
Ron

P.S. I've published this e-mail on my blog, SewerWatch.

###

[13 weeks down... 39 to go.]

Interesting Timing On Brown Act Refresher Course

I'm sure it's just a routine refresher course (I'm sure, I'm tellin' ya), but I do find the timing very interesting.

On the agenda for the March 25, SLO County Parks Commission meeting, it reads:

"9. Brown Act Presentation – Rita Neal (6:45)"

The reason I find that very interesting, is because, as I've shown through a recent series of e-mails (that I've also published on SewerWatch over the past few weeks), the SLO County Parks Commission, evidently, is little more than a Brown-Act-shredding-so-commissioners-can-cash-checks scam.

And, to make things more interesting, I cc'd SLO County Counsel, Warren Jensen, on all of those e-mails, and Rita Neal is from the SLO County Counsel's office.

So, look at this sequence of events. This is great:

On 2/22/10, I cc'd Jensen on an e-mail to the SLO County District Attorney's office, asking them to investigate how I was a clear victim of an egregious Brown Act violation by the SLO County Parks Commission.

Then, on 2/26/10, I cc'd Jensen on an e-mail where I showed how the SLO County Parks Commission held an illegal meeting at a Commissioner's home, another Brown Act violation.

Then, on 3/1/10, I cc'd Jensen on an e-mail where I showed how the former Chair of the SLO County Parks Commission recently played an illegal shell game with me involving a meeting protocol, another Brown Act violation.

THEN, on the agenda for the next meeting -- the very first opportunity after all of that came out -- this shows up:

"9. Brown Act Presentation – Rita Neal (6:45)"

I left a message on Neal's voice mail, because I wanted to ask her some questions about her "presentation," like, "Why now?" She didn't return my call.

But, I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Just a routine "Brown Act Presentation."

I'm sure... I'm tellin' ya.

###

[12 weeks down... 40 to go.]

California Fair Political Practices Commission Inexplicably Confuses SLO County Government with Local Non-profit Organization in Complaint

*** SewerWatch PRESS RELEASE ***

SANTA MARGARITA, CA -- The California Fair Political Practices recently announced that they will not be pursuing a complaint involving a SLO County Parks Commissioner, and an alleged conflict of interest involving her husband's landscaping firm.

The complaint, filed earlier this year by former newspaper editor and reporter, and current blogger, Ron Crawford, of Santa Margarita, alleges a conflict of interest between county Supervisor Bruce Gibson's appointment to the SLO County Parks Commission, Pandora Nash-Karner, who 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've received to design the project is from the SWA Group, where Nash-Karner's husband, Gary Karner, is a "Managing Principal and Senior Project Manager for 27 years and is currently retained by SWA," according to his bio.

"I would be deeply disappointed by the FPPC's decision to not investigate this matter, if I wasn't so confused by it," Crawford said.

In a three paragraph letter to Crawford, dated 3/8/10, a FPPC spokesperson writes, "You allege a potential conflict with Pandora Nash-Karner in her capacity as a director on San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden. The conflict of interest provisions of the Political Reform Act apply only to public officials with government agencies. The San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden is non-profit organization [sic] not subject to the provisions of the Political Reform Act. We are closing this matter without action."

"That's why I'm so confused," Crawford said. "In my complaint, I ask the FPPC to investigate a SLO County Parks Commissioner -- a 'public official,' according to the Political Reform Act -- however, in their brief response, there's no mention of the Parks Commissioner, at all. They only mention the San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden director, which I already know the FPPC doesn't investigate. But my point, that I made abundantly clear in my complaint, had little to do with a San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden director, and everything to do with a SLO County Parks Commissioner."

Indeed, in his complaint, Crawford mentions Nash-Karner's title as 2nd District Parks Commissioner numerous times.

For example, he writes, "Dear Fair Political Practices Commission, I'm filing this complaint with you, because I think I may have come across a violation of [Govt Code 87100] ... in San Luis Obispo County government. It involves the 2nd District Parks Commissioner..."

And, "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."

In his complaint, Crawford refers to Nash-Karner as a SLO County Parks Commissioner, in some form, no less than 11 times.

He even quotes Parks Commission meeting minutes where "Commissioner Nash-Karner" discusses the San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden, yet fails to mention her role as a Director for the garden, and her husband's considerable business interest with the facility.

"I guess the staff of the FPPC just doesn't know how to read," Crawford said. "That's the only reason I can think of on why they thought my complaint involved ONLY a non-profit organization, and not SLO County government. I don't know what to say, other than their decision makes absolutely no sense. I mean, 'The conflict of interest provisions of the Political Reform Act apply only to public officials with government agencies?' Huh? Which complaint where they reading... or at least TRYING to read?"

Crawford added, "Apparently, this arrangement:

Supervisor Bruce Gibson's appointment to the SLO County Parks Commission, Pandora Nash-Karner, 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've received to design the project is from the SWA Group, where Nash-Karner's husband, Gary Karner, is a "Managing Principal and Senior Project Manager for 27 years and is currently retained by SWA," according to his bio.

... is o.k. with the FPPC. Stunning."

To complicate matters, the recent FPPC decision, comes on the heels of another failed complaint Crawford filed last year with the FPPC asking them to investigate even more suspicious political activity involving Nash-Karner.

In that complaint, Crawford asked the FPPC to investigate a 2006 campaign contribution document filed by a "coalition" formed by Nash-Karner, called "Save the Dream," created to help defeat a recall election involving three Los Osos CSD Directors.

In that document, it reads that the Save the Dream coalition made a $3,869.04 "payment" to "Pandora & Co.," Nash-Karner's own marketing business, yet nowhere in that document does it mention that Nash-Karner was also the "chair" of Save the Dream at the time she hired her own business.

"What blew me away about that case, is that, when I was first on the phone with FPPC officials, asking them if it's o.k. for a citizen to form a political 'coalition,' and then hire their own business to perform work for that coalition -- essentially, manufacture work for themselves -- the FPPC officials were, at first, excited. They told me, 'This is a good one!,'" Crawford said.

"However, they eventually sent me a letter saying they weren't going to pursue that investigation, because it wasn't in their 'jurisdiction to initiate an investigation.' When I followed up, by asking their executive director, Roman Porter, 'Whose jurisdiction is it?,' he said that he would get back to me 'on Monday.' That was six months ago."

"Just last month, when I was filing my latest complaint, I asked Mr. Porter, again -- six months after first asking the question -- 'whose jurisdiction is it?' No response."

"And, as of today, the question of whether it's a violation of government code for a citizen to form a political coalition, and then manufacture work for their businesses, like Nash-Karner did with her Save the Dream coalition, is completely up in the air. There was absolutely no resolution to my question, that FPPC officials, at first, thought was a 'good one,'" Crawford said.

Crawford's entire complaint involving SLO County Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, the San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden, their $20 million expansion project and, Gary Karner's SWA Group, can be read at this link:

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

Crawford's blog, SewerWatch, is at sewerwatch.blogspot.com

SewerWatch has published continuously since June 2005.

###

Place Your Bets: Did Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, Suffer a Memory Blackout, OR, is Supervisor, Bruce Gibson, Lying to Me?

TO: Pandora Nash-Karner, SLO County Parks Commissioner, 2nd District
DATE: 3/15/10

Dear Commissioner Nash-Karner,

The reason I'm writing you today, is because I was hoping that you could help settle a bet between me, and SLO County Supervisor, Bruce Gibson. (Well, technically, it's not really a "bet," but, I thought "settling a bet" sounded cool, and since I'll be publishing this e-mail on my blog, and because the subject of this e-mail is kinda-sorta "bet-like," we'll just go with that metaphor... for now.)

And to make this story even juicier, ONLY you can settle this bet. Think about that. Out of the 6-7 billion people on this planet, only ONE person can settle this bet. You.

So, here's the deal:

On the recording of the 1/28/10 Parks Commission meeting (that I obtained a copy of through a public records request), I can hear Parks Department staff tell your board that Supervisor Gibson recently requested that Parks staff withdraw an application for some $5 million in Proposition 84 funding for a park project that you are proposing at the Tri-W site, in Los Osos.

Also on the recording, you appear to be very surprised to hear that information. You say things like, "I had no idea," and, "What were the reasons Bruce gave (for withdrawing the application)," and "I didn't realize we had sent this (request)."

Furthermore, judging from your reaction to the news that the Prop 84 funding was being yanked, that project -- the Tri-W park project -- seems EXTREMELY important to you.

Now, I've since contacted Supervisor Gibson, asking him why he didn't notify you -- his own appointment to the Parks Commission -- about his request to withdraw the application for the Prop 84 funding for your Tri-W park project, BEFORE that 1/28/10 meeting.

Here's where it gets weird(er):

He's told me that he actually DID make you aware of his request before that meeting. He, and SLO County Parks Director, Curtis Black (who answered my questions to Supervisor Gibson on Gibson's "behalf"), indicate that, perhaps, due to your workload, you simply don't remember him informing you on the Prop 84/Tri-W subject.

In a recent e-mail to me, Curtis Black writes, "Supervisor Gibson shared the Tri-W and Prop 84 information with Commissioner Nash-Karner prior to the 1/28/2010 PRC meeting," and, "I do not know why she did not recall the information that evening but it is understandable to me considering the demands that are placed on her time."

Here's where you come in, Commissioner Nash-Karner. Here's where you -- and ONLY you -- can settle our little "bet."

Who's right?

Is Supervisor Gibson right, in that he made you aware of that information BEFORE the 1/28/10 meeting, and you then suffered a complete memory blackout at that meeting?

OR...

Am I right, in that, based on the fact that you said things like, "What were the reasons Bruce gave (for withdrawing the application)," and, "I had no idea," at that meeting, that he DIDN'T make you aware of the Tri-W/Prop 84 information before the meeting, and, therefore, he's now lying to me when he says that he did?

So, who's right?

Did you suffer a complete memory blackout on a subject that is very, very important to you, OR, is Supervisor Gibson lying to me?

Which one?

Finally, one more quick question, please...

Los Osos CSD president, Marshall Ochylski, recently made it official that he will be challenging Supervisor Gibson for 2nd District Supervisor this election year. If memory serves, you, as a former LOCSD Director yourself, supported Mr. Ochylski in 2008 as a candidate for the LOCSD Board of Directors. And, as I've shown numerous times on my blog, you also publicly endorsed, and financially supported, Bruce Gibson when he was running for Supervisor in 2006.

Here's my question: Will you also be publicly endorsing, and financially supporting, Supervisor Gibson this election year?

As always, much thanks,
Ron

P.S. I noticed that the Parks Department's slogan is "delivering excellence to every customer." That reminds me... I was told that there's an architectural drawing of the proposed Tri-W park. Please consider this e-mail a Public Records Act request for a copy of that drawing. Thanks again.

- - -

IF she responds, I'll post it.

###

[11 weeks down... 41 to go.]

SLO County Government's Awkward, Indirect Lines of Communication: No Bueno

[Note: If you've ever wondered why investigative journalism is going the way of the woolly mammoth, crap like this has A LOT to do with it.]

TO: Curtis Black, Deputy Director, SLO County Parks Department
DATE: 3/9/10

Hello Curtis,

Thank you for your reply [reprinted below]... I guess???... to my questions that I e-mailed directly to Supervisor Gibson.

This is kind of an awkward way to do this, but it looks like it'll have to do. Could you now please ask Mr. Gibson another question for me, and then you could also answer this question on his "behalf"... again.

In your answer -- to my questions for Supervisor Gibson -- you write:

- - -
"Pandora may have expressed surprise as she may not have recalled the information. However, Supervisor Gibson did let her know of the Coastal Commission's actions and their impact on the potential for a Prop 84 application."
- - -

Yet, on the 1/28/10 Parks Commission meeting recording, Commissioner Nash-Karner, says, "I had no idea (about the Prop 84/Tri-W park application)."

She also asks you, "What were the reasons that Bruce (Gibson) gave (for withdrawing the funding request)?" And, she also said, "I'll talk to Bruce about this (Prop. 84 funding for the Tri-W park project) issue."

So, here's my question:

Did Supervisor Gibson lie to you, and then have you lie to me... on his "behalf," or, did Commissioner Nash-Karner truly NOT "recall" -- at all... a complete memory blackout -- recently speaking with Supervisor Gibson about that seemingly (at least to her) very important issue?

I will note, that on that 1/28/10 recording, she did more than "express surprise" upon hearing that Prop 84 news. She was, frankly, blown away. "Express surprise" is not an accurate phrase to describe her reaction to that information. She went on a 20-minute rambling rant regarding the issue, including expressing her grave "disappointment" with Parks Dept. staff, including you, for simply complying with Supervisor Gibson's "request" to withdraw the application.

Her rant was so offensive to you, Curtis, that, at the end of it, you, understandably, call her, "Very unfair... truly unfair."

And, I will ALSO note, that, after allegedly not "recalling" her conversation with her Supervisor, all she had to do was glance at her agenda packet BEFORE the meeting, and she would have quickly seen that the Prop 84 funding request had been withdrawn.

So, let me see if I have this straight: According to Supervisor Gibson... according to you... Pandora Nash-Karner doesn't "recall" important conversations with her Supervisor, AND doesn't check her agenda packets before meetings?

Um, isn't that her job?

OR, is the entire Parks Commission one big Brown Act shredding scam, as I recently exposed (and have filed a complaint with the SLO County DA's office asking them to investigate) at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/sewerwatch-asks-da-to-investigate.html

... this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/slo-county-parks-department-uses.html

... and exists just so the Commissioners (and their spouses) can cash fat checks from public money? Because, I've got to admit, it's really starting to look that way, as my complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission exposes, at this link:

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

I'm very interested in hearing how Supervisor Gibson answers my questions -- answers that will, apparently, come from you, on his "behalf," and then you send them to me, and then I reply to you, with questions for him... that you then answer... again... on his "behalf."

As always, much thanks,
Ron

P.S. I've published this e-mail on my blog.

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

- - -

At 6:06 PM -0800 3/3/10, cblack@co.slo.ca.us wrote:

Good afternoon Mr. Crawford,

This e-mail is sent on behalf of Supervisor Gibson. It regards your recent request for information and our conversation(s) about the Tri-W site and possible Prop 84 application. Please see e-mail following.

I believe this is the information that you have sought....
The Prop 84 application was withdrawn because the Coastal Commission had decided to conduct further review of the appeals for the sewer project. So, the Tri-W site was not entirely ready for consideration.

Pandora may have expressed surprise as she may not have recalled the information. However, Supervisor Gibson did let her know of the Coastal Commission's actions and their impact on the potential for a Prop 84 application.

I am not aware of any additional conversation(s) regarding the Tri-W site. I can say that County Parks would strongly support having a park for mid-town Los Osos and the Tri-W site would meet most of County Park's desires for park lands. The size and location would make it a suitable parcel. As County Parks Deputy Director, I do not have any responsibilities regarding the sewer project and anticipate that our conversations would only be as relates to the parks and recreation services that County Parks provides for the community.

Thank you again for your interest in parks and recreation services in Los Osos.
Regards,
Curtis

Curtis Black
Deputy Director - Parks
County of San Luis Obispo
General Services Agency
"Delivering excellence to every customer."
- - -

###

[10 weeks down... 42 to go.]

Newly Elected SLO County Parks Commission Chair, Bruce Hilton's First Official Act? To Get Jedi Mind Tricked by Pandora Nash-Karner. . . of course

[Note: If you're not familiar with how I first exposed Los Osos resident and professional marketer, Pandora Nash-Karner's penchant to practice something she calls "behavior based marketing," then I HIGHLY recommend reading this post: She is Los Osos, just click here. It's absolutely fascinating, and completely relevant today. And, as I've shown repeatedly on this blog, it's THE reason why there's a massive civics train wreck in Los Osos. As I show in that piece, she can actually "Jedi mind trick" people into doing things they normally wouldn't. Over and over and over again, she does that. For 20 years now, in Los Osos. It's mind blowing. And now, in 2010, I've uncovered ANOTHER excellent example. As you're about to read, she recently Jedi mind tricked SLO County Parks Commission Chair, Bruce Hilton.

Look for it...

"These are not the droids you're looking for."
These are not the droids we're looking for."

and;

"I forgot to mention earlier, that item #8 has been deferred until February. So, item #9 is all yours."
"So with that, we have item #9..."

Beautiful, and may the force be with you!]

- - -
- - -

TO: Bruce Hilton, Chair, SLO County Parks Commission

Dear Mr. Hilton,

I was listening to the recording of the 1/28/10 Parks Commission meeting, and something very strange seemed to happen at that meeting that I'm not clear on. It involves you, so I was hoping you could help explain it to me.

First, the agenda order on the recording is different than that of both the posted agenda, and even the agenda order listed in the minutes, at this link:

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

Item #2 is:

- - -
2. Nominations and Election of Commission Chair and Vice-Chair. Commissioner Nash-Karner nominated Commissioner Hilton for Chairman, seconded by Commissioner Mathews. Motion passed 4-0. Commissioner Hilton nominated Commissioner Gonzales for Vice-Chairman, seconded by Commissioner Nash-Karner. Motion passed 4-0.
- - -

However, on the recording, that agenda item is not #2. It's item #7 (for reasons I'm also not clear on), and here's why that appears to be a HUGE problem.

Immediately after that motion passed, I can hear the sound of applause from the people in attendance -- which, apparently, consisted of the Commissioners, Parks' staff, and one member of the public -- congratulating you on your election to the Chair.

I can also hear you say, "I'll take the gavel."

Then, immediately after the gavel was passed to you -- after YOU were now the Chair, and, therefore responsible for how the meeting was conducted -- Commissioner Nash-Karner, all of a sudden, says, "Um, I forgot to mention earlier, that item #8 has been deferred until February."

Then, you pause, and say, "O.K."

Then, she says, "So, item #9 is all yours."

Then, you say, "So with that, we have item #9..."

Here's my question: Considering that Nash-Karner "forgot to mention" that item #8 had been "deferred," shouldn't item #8 have been your first official item to discuss, and not item #9?

With this quote:

"Um, I forgot to mention earlier, that item #8 has been deferred until February."

... it seems like she acted as the Chair, AFTER you were elected Chair.

The reason I'm extremely concerned about this matter, is because it goes right to the heart of my complaint that I filed recently with the SLO County District Attorney's office involving possible (and egregious) Brown Act violations by the SLO County Parks Commission.

You can read my complaint at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/sewerwatch-asks-da-to-investigate.html

As you'll see, my complaint involves only ONE item from the January 28, 2010, meeting -- item #8, of course.

Where it read:

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

And, as I exposed in a recent investigative piece, Supervisor Bruce Gibson's appointment to the SLO County Parks Commission, Pandora Nash-Karner, 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've received to design the project is from the SWA Group, where Nash-Karner's husband, Gary Karner, is a "Managing Principal and Senior Project Manager for 27 years and is currently retained by SWA," according to his bio.

So, as you can imagine, I'm more than a little confused on what transpired at the 1/28/10 meeting -- between your election as Chair, and former Chair, Pandora Nash-Karner, and item #8.

It appears like that was ANOTHER egregious violation of the Brown Act, and, if so, I'd like to add it to my original complaint with the DA's office.

But it's all so sneaky and confusing, that I'm not entirely sure it's even a Brown Act violation.

So, with all of that in mind...

Shouldn't YOU have handled the discussion for item #8? After all, you were the Chair at the time.

And, why was it "deferred?" Why was there no discussion on that item? Why wasn't a staff report for that posted item included in the agenda packet? What in the heck happened there?

By the way, item #8 WASN'T "deferred until February," of course.

Thank you for your prompt reply to this very important matter,
Ron

P.S.
I'll soon be publishing this e-mail on my blog:

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

[Nine weeks down... 43 to go.]