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at her agenda packet BEFORE the meeting, and she would have quickly seen that the Prop 84 funding request had been withdrawn.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.]