Mecham, Ochylski, and SewerWatch Support Public Participation in Government -- Supervisor Gibson? Um. . . Not So Much

TO: Franck Mecham, Chairperson, SLO County Board of Supervisors
DATE: 4/28/10

Dear Supervisor Mecham,

I just wanted to send you a quick note saying, "Thank you!," for how you handled yesterday's Board meeting. That 'question and answer' segment you held at the end of the Los Osos wastewater project update was flat-out brilliant, and unbelievably refreshing.

SLO County government actually listening to, and responding to SLO County citizens? Wow... great work!

Can I ask you a quick question?

I'm curious: Did you get that idea from 2nd District Supervisor candidate, Marshall Olchylski, when he appeared on Dave Congalton's radio show on Monday -- the day before your meeting?

The reason I ask, is because I listened to that interview, and I heard Mr. Ochylski say that one of the things he did as President of the Los Osos CSD, was actually create a regular agenda item where the Board takes questions from citizens, and then answers them. And, according to Ochylski, if the LOCSD Board, or staff, doesn't have the answer to a question at the time of the meeting, they make a note of the question, and have the answer ready at their next meeting.

When I heard him say that, my first thought was, "What a GREAT idea!"

Based on your excellent Q&A on Tuesday, I get the feeling you also heard Mr. Ochylski mention that, and your reaction was similar to mine: "What a great idea."

And, please ignore Supervisor Gibson's whining yesterday, when he questioned your Q&A by saying that many of those questions have already been asked and answered "once" in the past 3-plus years.

He's just bitter, because many of those same people that ask those great questions were SO right when it came to the pre-recall LOCSD's $25 million, wildly unpopular, mid-town sewer plant disaster, that so many of Gibson's "supporters" were responsible for, including his current Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner (that he appointed to the SLO County Parks Commission, AFTER she developed and then implemented a "strategy" (her word) to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence.").

So, these days, he'd rather muzzle the public commenters, than build consensus, obviously.

Apparently, Supervisor Gibson fails to understand the importance of repetition of information, especially for a subject as complex and important as the Los Osos wastewater project.

As you may recall, when Supervisor Gibson was Chairperson, he actually limited the amount of time Los Ososans could speak on the subject. The problem was, those people were pointing out serious problems with the county's sewer development process -- like the Tonini site problem, where the location of that site didn't return groundwater to the basin -- and had he actually listened to those speakers, instead of shutting them up, tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars could have been saved on the study of the Tonini site, that the Public Works Department selected as its final treatment site location, before it was eventually moved by the Planning Commission, because it didn't return groundwater to the basin.

(Wow, was Gibson wrong on that... on sooooo many levels.)

So, thank you again for that question and answer period. Great job, and, heck, the entire segment only took a few minutes to complete. Beautiful, beautiful work.

And, again, please ignore Supervisor Gibson's whining, and continue with that excellent, highly democratic process.

Thanks again,
Ron

P.S. I've published this e-mail (with fun links) on my blog:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

[17 weeks down... 35 to go.]

Congratulations Supervisor Ochylski

"In this race, however, we do not believe (Marshall Ochylski) has come out with a strong platform that differentiates him from Gibson."
-- The Tribune, from a 4/18/10 editorial supporting incumbent, Bruce Gibson, in the race for 2nd District SLO County Supervisor

- - -

Ah, the Tribune. So wrong, so often.

Had the Trib actually contacted Ochylski, like I did, and asked him some questions, like I did, they would have discovered (like I did) that Ochylski actually does have a VERY strong platform that "differentiates him from Gibson."

In my previous "at least weekly" post, I asked Ochylski, if elected, would he appoint current (and long time) 2nd District Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, to the SLO County Parks Commission.

"I have not made any decisions on appointments but the fact that Pandora is supporting Bruce should answer your question," Ochylski wrote in an e-mail to SewerWatch.

Congratulations Supervisor Ochylski.

Allow me to play campaign manager: If he sticks to that platform, and, throughout the campaign, repeatedly states that Nash-Karner will not be his Parks Commissioner, he will win... easily.

Here's why.

Due, largely, to my reporting over the past six years, these days, the girl's wildly unpopular in Los Osos, and Los Osos is the largest voting bloc (by far) in the 2nd District, and she's wildly unpopular for many good reasons.

I'm going to focus on three... for now.

1) As I first exposed at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/05/contrast.html

...Nash-Karner, immediately following the 2005 Los Osos CSD recall election that doomed the Tri-W embarrassment/sewer "project," developed and then implemented a "strategy" (her word) to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence" (her words), by "phoning" the executive officer at the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Roger Briggs, and informing him that her... um... followers would soon be inundating him with demands to fine the town out of existence... which they did... and he did.

Gets worse... if you can imagine.

She developed that "strategy" because the town's voters told her, through the recall election, that they did not want to build a horribly designed sewer plant smack-dab in the middle of their beautiful coastal town.

THAT's why she developed and then implemented her "strategy" to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence," because they didn't want an industrial sewer plant in the middle of their beautiful coastal town. Think about that.

One year AFTER Nash-Karner developed and then implemented her "strategy," Bruce Gibson, in one of his first official acts in office, (re)appointed her to the SLO County Parks Commission.

I first wrote about that unbelievably interesting sequence of events at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/04/sequence-pandora-nash-karner-is-bruce.html

By the way, her "strategy" appears to be working (present tense).

According to correspondence that has crossed the SewerWatch desk since Nash-Karner deployed her "strategy," the stress associated with her resulting enforcement actions, that were eventually issued by the RWQCB against the Los Osos CSD and 46 individual property owners, has sent many Los Osos seniors to the hospital, and worse.

Uh... yeah... I first exposed that stomach-turning story, at this link:

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

That's reason #1 (one!) why Ochylski will be the next 2nd District Supervisor.

Reason #2 is also great.

In 1998, the county of SLO, after some six years of planning, had a sewer project "ready to go" for Los Osos, at an estimated "$71/month." However, Nash-Karner, along with her husband, Gary Karner, made-up a "better, cheaper, faster" sewer project (out of their home), and then heavily marketed that sewer project to the town's voters, and told them that if they voted to form a CSD, and elected Nash-Karner to the initial Board of Directors, they would have the authority to kill the county's "ready to go" project, and implement their "better, cheaper, faster."

Throughout 1998, every agency involved with the project told the Karners that their project wasn't going to work, but the Karners "just sat on" that mountain of information, and continued to over-the-top market their "better, cheaper, faster" project to the town's voters.

It worked.

In November 1998, the town voted to form the LOCSD, based solely on "better, cheaper, faster," and made Nash-Karner the #1 vote-getter on the newly formed District's board.

In 2000, I authored a New Times cover story, Problems with the Solution, that first showed how the Karners' "better, cheaper, faster" project, after nearly two years of study, was on the verge of failing. One month after Problems with the Solution was published, "better, cheaper, faster" failed, just like all of the agencies predicted, months before the November 1998 election.

Even Richard LeGros, one of the District's directors recalled in 2005, wrote in 2009, "Yes, the (Karners') plan deep-sixed the County's Plan (in 1999)."

Get worse... if you can imagine.

Almost immediately after Nash-Karner took office -- an office that the Karners were solely responsible for creating in the first place -- official LOCSD documents associated with their "better, cheaper, faster" project began containing the words, "SWA Group."

According to his bio, Gary Karner has been a "Managing Principal" at the SWA Group -- a landscaping firm -- for more than "27 years," and is "currently retained" by the SWA Group.

Uh... yeah... I first exposed that intensely interesting story at this link:

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

Then, there's good ol' reason #3 why Marshall Ochylski will be the next 2nd District Supervisor.

From 1999 - 2005, Nash-Karner was the mother of the disastrous mid-town Tri-W sewer plant, a "project" that the past four years and $7 million worth of SLO county analysis has now shown to be a complete embarrassment, just like I first reported in my 2004 New Times cover story, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown.

As part of their analysis, SLO County officials conducted a community survey that concluded, "Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location..."

[The campaign manager for Candidate Ochylski might wanna listen-up here: To be clear, over 90-percent of the largest voting bloc [by far] in the 2nd District, didn't want Nash-Karner's sewer plant in the middle of their beautiful town to begin with... a "project" that the Karners' CSD had spent five years, and some $25 million of those same people's money developing!]

In the same e-mails where Nash-Karner reveals her "strategy" to fine Los Osos "out of existence," she also writes, "We MUST save this (Tri-W) project!"

So, to recap why Ochylski will win on June 8:

His Parks Commissioner WON'T be the mother of "fine out of existence," the mother of "better, cheaper, faster," and the mother of the wildly unpopular, $25 million Tri-W disaster, and, most important, his official web site doesn't read, "Supporters: Pandora & Company Graphic Design," unlike Supervisor Gibson's official web site.

###

[16 weeks down... 36 to go.]

Question for Candidate Ochylski, Plus an Update on My Question for Sarah Christie

TO: Marshall Ochylski, Candidate for 2nd District SLO County Supervisor
DATE: 4/14/10

Hello Mr. Ochylski,

I'm researching a story on the 2nd District Supervisor race, and I thought of a very important question that voters will need to know the answer to... before the election.

If you're elected, will current 2nd District Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, be your appointment to the Parks Commission?

And, please, a 'yes' or 'no' answer is required here.

Incidentally, in the comments section of a story published on CalCoastNews.com, Nash-Karner posted that she is supporting Supervisor Gibson.

I'd provide a link to that story (and comment), but CalCoastNews.com removed the entire piece from their blog (after it was published), for reasons unknown.

Thank you for your time,
Ron

- - -

Update: Last week, I asked former SLO County Planning Commissioner, and current "Legislative Liaison" for the California Coastal Commission, Sarah Christie, why the CCC, in 2004, approved the "infeasible," $200 million Tri-W park-project-that-contained-a-sewer-system.

Here are her (non)answers:

"My best suggestion is for you to read the CCC staff report for the project in 2004 to get the legal rationale for the approval."

To which I replied:

"As for the 2004 staff report, I actually have read that, but what I'm looking for today, in light of all the embarrassing information that's come out about the Tri-W park project over the past four years, is a 2010 answer from a CCC spokesperson.

In other words, in 2010, it really looks like the CCC made an enormous mistake in 2004 by approving the Tri-W project, and now I'm trying to get a CCC spokesperson to explain to me, and all of Californians, what happened.

Why did the Coastal Commission approve such a deeply, deeply flawed project?

That approval led to six-years-and-counting of delay, and millions of wasted dollars, AND made the lives of 46 property owners (CDO recipients) hell."

She replied:

"If you are looking for a comment from a CCC spokesperson, I would have to say that the Commission relied on the analysis and recommendation contained in the 2004 staff report. If new information has come to light in the ensuing years, and/or in the context of the current proposal, that is information that was not available or was not presented to the Commission in 2004."

Then, I replied:

"Here's the HUGE problem with your take:

The "new information that has come to light" existed in 2004. It WAS "available." But the CCC, for, I must admit, extremely suspicious reasons, failed to see that mountain of information -- information that showed that the Tri-W project was merely a park project disguised as a sewer project, and therefore, a deeply, deeply flawed wastewater project, of course.

But the Coastal Commission, in 2004, failed to see that obvious situation.

Why?

Like I wrote earlier, my book is going to require an answer -- a 2010 answer -- to that question, so, if you can't answer it, could you please direct me to a CCC spokesperson that can."

And that was that. She never responded again.

So, right now, there's STILL no official answer to my over-the-top important question:

Why did the Coastal Commission approve the Tri-W disaster in 2004?

Although, I do know the answer to that question, of course.

The answer to my question is found in the following quote that I recently dug out of official transcripts when the Coastal Commission was discussing the Tri-W development permit in 2004:

"I admit that I probably didn't look at the specific language of the LCP, the way I should have."
-- California Coastal Commission member, Sara Wan, August 11, 2004

So, the reason the Coastal Commission approved the Tri-W disaster in 2004, is because Sara Wan is lazy.

HAD she bothered to read the "specific language of the Local Coastal Plan," like I did, she would have discovered that she was actually approving an illegal, $200 million park project, disguised as a sewer project... like I did.

Then, she could have informed her fellow uninformed Commissioners on that fact, and the Tri-W disaster would have never been approved, and what just happened with the County's $7-plus million/4 year analysis -- a sewer system with a treatment facility out of town -- would have happened starting in 2004, and everything that's happened since then -- AB 2701, the Los Osos recall election, four-years-and-$7-plus-million worth of county analysis, the LOCSD bankruptcy, the premature start of construction at the Tri-W site in 2005 that destroyed all of that "environmentally sensitive habitat," and, of course, the Water Quality Control Board enforcement actions (CDOs) on the 46 individual property owners -- would have never happened... had Sara Wan not been lazy.

###

[15 weeks down... 37 to go.]

Let's Try This Again: Why Was the Deeply Flawed, "Infeasible" Tri-W Project Permitted by the California Coastal Commission in 2004? Part II

TO: Sarah Christie, Legislative Liaison, California Coastal Commission
DATE: 4/5/10

Hello Sarah,

I'm researching a story about Los Osos, and I currently have a gaping hole in my story that I was hoping you could help me fill in.

The reason I'm contacting you is because 1) I e-mailed, Charles Lester, Senior Deputy Director, California Coastal Commission Central Coast District Office, a version of this e-mail last December, but he never replied, and 2) I thought you'd be the perfect source for my question (that's right, just one question) considering that you were on the SLO County County Planning Commission recently when the current version of the Los Osos wastewater project was approved by your Board, and you also currently work for the Coastal Commission, and those two, combined, seem to make you the perfect source for my question:

Why was the Los Osos CSD's "Tri-W project" permitted by the California Coastal Commission in 2004?

That's the gaping hole in my story.

Here's why:

In September 2004, only one month after the Coastal Commission gave final approval to the Tri-W project, I authored a New Times cover story, titled Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown.

That story is archived at this link:

http://archive.newtimesslo.com/archive/2004-09-22/cover/index.html

In that story, I first exposed how the only -- repeat only -- reason that an industrial sewer plant was being planned for the middle of Los Osos, was so that the town's residents could easily access a multi-million dollar public park that CSD officials had designed into their project.

For example, one (of the many) sources I used in Three Blocks to show that point, was the following quote that I dug straight out of the project's official report, that was produced by Los Osos CSD officials in 2001:

"The size and location of the other sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity. The sites on the outskirts of town could not deliver a community use area that was readily accessible to the majority of residents..."

Shortly after Three Blocks was published, I also discovered the following quote in the Tri-W project's development permit:

"... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected (by the Los Osos CSD) on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."

What Three Blocks concludes (among other very interesting things), is that the Tri-W project wasn't so much a sewer plant that included a public park, as much as it was a park project that included a sewer plant.

That's a much more accurate description of the project. Think about it... if ALL other potential, out-of-town sites were "rejected" by the LOCSD because they were too far away for residents to easily access the park, then the park is dictating the location (and adding tens of millions of dollars to the cost of the project... which was ALL on the park), and that makes the Tri-W project a park project, and not a sewer project. Take the multi-million dollar park out of the Tri-W project, and there's no reason why it couldn't have been easily moved out of town, just like I first showed in Three Blocks.

And, now, in 2010, four years and $7-plus million worth of SLO County analysis has proven Three Blocks to be 100-percent right.

For example, in a May 31, 2007, letter to County Supervisors, Paavo Ogren, then-Deputy Director of Public Works, wrote, "... the objectives that tilted the scale in favor of (the Tri-W) site may no longer have the weight they were given when the site was originally selected. In other words, “amenities”, like community parks, will not obscure the goals of providing the most efficient and cost effective solution to wastewater and groundwater problems."

Furthermore, according to the county's 2007 Pro/Con Report of the numerous project alternatives county officials considered for Los Osos, the Tri-W project came in dead last.

I've condensed what the Pro/Con Report says about the Tri-W project:

- - -

- "(Tri-W's) downtown location (near library, church, community center) and the high density residential area require that the most expensive treatment technology, site improvements and odor controls be employed."

and;

- "It has high construction costs..." ($55 million. The next highest treatment facility option is estimated at $19 million.)

and;

- "Very high land value and mitigation requirements"

and;

- Tri-W energy requirements: "Highest"

and;

- "Small acreage and location in downtown center of towns require most expensive treatment"

and;

- "higher costs overall"

and;

- "Limited flexibility for future expansion, upgrades, or alternative energy"

and;

- "Source of community divisiveness"

and;

- "All sites are tributary to the Morro Bay National Estuary and pose a potential risk in the event of failure. Tri-W poses a higher risk..."

and;

- "NOTE: It was the unanimous opinion of the (National Water Research Institute) that an out of town site is better due to problematic issues with the downtown site."

and;

- "ESHA – sensitive dune habitat"

- - -

Gets worse.

According to the March 2009, "Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey," conducted by county officials, "Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location (as their preference for the treatment facility)."

... and worse:

In a June 2009 letter to the California Coastal Commission, the SLO County "Project team," states, "The Project team, given the clear social infeasibility issue associated with Mid Town (Tri-W) and the infeasible status of the LOCSD disposal plan, believes that if either of those options are deemed by decision-makers to be the best solution for Los Osos, then serious consideration should be given by the Board (of Supervisors) to adopt a due diligence resolution and not pursue Project implementation."

... and worse:

In August 2004, when the California Coastal Commission was discussing the development permit for the Tri-W project, Commissioner, Toni Iseman, according to official transcripts, said, "I don't remember anything with as many cautions and questions that came up with an approval, than this project."

... and worse:

The California Coastal Commission approved the Tri-W project on a 7-1 vote, with Iseman as the lone dissenter.

So, again, here's my question: Why?

Why was the deeply, deeply flawed Tri-W project permitted by the California Coastal Commission in 2004?

In the context of 2010, that decision doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever, and, like I wrote above, it is currently a gaping hole in my story, especially considering that I wrote a New Times cover story in 2004 that showed the Tri-W project was a park project that included a sewer system. And, right now, in 2010, my 2004 story is still completely unresolved, and that's a HUGE hole in my story that I'm eventually going to have to fill-in for my upcoming book on the subject. Incredibly, my six-year-old story is completely up in the air.

So, considering all of the information above, allow me to reword my question:

If the Tri-W project was socially and technically "infeasible," according to SLO County staff, and also very unpopular in the community because it included an unnecessarily expensive -- MUCH more expensive -- sewer plant in the middle of town, and if it was not the "environmentally preferable alternative," and if it had the "highest construction costs and energy requirements," and if it was being planned on "ESHA," and if it possessed "limited flexibility for future expansion, upgrades, or alternative energy," and if it was proposed at a "downtown location (near library, church, community center)" and directly across the street from "high density residential areas," and because of its proximity to "downtown" and "high density residential areas" it required "the most expensive treatment technology, site improvements and odor controls be employed," and if it posed the "highest" risk of spills into the Morro Bay National Estuary, and if it was also loaded with "cautions and questions" at the time of its permitting, according to a Coastal Commissioner (that ended up being proven 100-percent right), why was the Tri-W project permitted by the California Coastal Commission in the first place, in 2004?

That doesn't seem to make any sense.

And, here's why that question appears to be over-the-top important in 2010:

Had the Coastal Commission NOT approved that park-project-disguised-as-a-sewer-project, the Los Osos CSD would have been forced to move the sewer plant out of town in 2004, just like the county's four-year/$7-plus million analysis showed is the preferable way to go, and everything the county has just completed over the past four years, would have happened with the LOCSD starting in 2004. Which means that everything that's happened over the past six years -- AB 2701, the Los Osos recall election, four-years-and-$7-plus-million worth of county analysis, the LOCSD bankruptcy, the premature start of construction at the Tri-W site in 2005 that destroyed all of that "environmentally sensitive habitat," and, of course, the Water Quality Control Board enforcement actions (CDOs) on the 46 individual property owners -- would have never happened... had the Coastal Commission simply heeded Commissioner Iseman's extremely sensible advice, and not permitted the Tri-W park project.

So, again, how does the Coastal Commission answer this question in 2010:

Why was a wildly unpopular, "infeasible" project that was loaded with "cautions and questions," and not the "environmentally preferable alternative" -- a project that the 2001 - 2005 LOCSD spent nearly $25 million and four years developing, yet didn't even come close to making the County's short-list of alternative projects (as you, as a former SLO County Planning Commissioner, know) -- and was shown to be a complete (and [unnecessarily] very expensive) embarrassment by the county's own documents, permitted by the California Coastal Commission in 2004?

Do you know the answer to that question?

In the context of 2010, it seems like an awfully important question, and one that, not only Los Ososans deserve an answer to, but ALL Californians.

Plus, as you can now probably imagine, my book is going to require some sort of answer to that question. It's currently a gaping hole in my story.

Thank you for your time,
Ron

P.S. I've published this e-mail on my blog: sewerwatch.blogspot.com

- - -

[Note: For the benefit of my reader(s) -- I put the "s" in "()" just in case there's more than one -- I already know the answer to my question BEFORE I ask it, as usual.

Here's the answer to my question:

The reason the Coastal Commission approved the Tri-W embarrassment in 2004 is because they were deliberately lied to by the 2000 - 2004 Los Osos CSD.

Steve Monowitz, the Coastal Commission staff member that handled the Tri-W development permit, told me, when I interviewed him over the phone in 2005, that he felt that he was "misled" by the LOCSD regarding the District's reasons for NOT moving the project to a site out of town, and if Monowitz were asked today -- under oath, in a simple deposition -- this question:

"Do you feel like you were lied to by the Los Osos CSD regarding the siting of the Tri-W sewer plant?"

He would answer that question, "Yes."

And, as I've reported repeatedly on SewerWatch, if Monowitz had NOT been "misled" by LOCSD officials on that extremely important point, not only would the Commission staff NOT recommended approval of the Tri-W project, they couldn't have approved it, because it was out of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act... because it wasn't the "environmentally preferable" project, that CEQA requires.

So, THAT's why the California Coastal Commission approved the Tri-W embarrassment... because they were lied to (read: "bait and switchy") by the Los Osos CSD for four years.

That's the answer to my question... and, think about it, it makes perfect sense. I mean, why else would they have approved that mess, if they weren't tricked (again, read: "bait and switchy"-ed] into approving it?

Now, let's see how the Coastal Commission answers my question.]

###

[14 weeks down... 38 to go.]

Mysterious Document Appears to Show Over $700,000 in "Payments" to "Pandora & Company"

TO: Pandora Nash-Karner, SLO County Parks Commissioner, 2nd District
DATE: 4/1/10

Dear Commissioner Nash-Karner,

Sorry to bother you, but I recently came across (what appears to be) a very interesting document posted at this link:

http://www.lososossentinel.com/heroes

What the document appears to show is that an agency (apparently the Los Osos CSD, judging by the "descriptions" of the "tasks") made over $700,000 in "public relations payments" to your marketing business, Pandora & Company.

However, the document does not contain a letterhead, or a date, so I don't know if it's authentic, and that's where I'm hoping that you might be able to help me out.

I've attached the document to this e-mail, and I was hoping you could look at it and tell me if you recognize it, and, if you do, then maybe you could also give me an approximate date of the document.

It's a very interesting document, because, not only does it appear to show that the LOCSD made over $700,000 in "payments" to your business, but it also contains some very bizarre "task" "descriptions."

For example, one of the itemized "tasks" is for something called "Celebration #1." That "task," according to the document, required "58 people," "78 total hours," and cost "$7,299."

Another itemized "task" is for "flyers," that required "15 people," "414 hours," at a cost of "$70,254."

Something called "neighborhood meetings," apparently required a "$72,960" "payment" to Pandora & Company, according to the document.

"Door Hanger: Info?" "433 people," "445 hours," "$35,653."

"Daily Radio Traffic Reports?" "0.12 people," "426 total hours," "$45,609."

Huh?

To add to my confusion, in 2005, I heard your husband phone into the Dave Congalton show, and say, on air, that, in 2000, you placed a bid for $700,000 to the LOCSD for "public relations services," but he said that you did not get the contract. However, the attached document, if real, appears to contradict your husband's claim.

So, here are my questions:

Is that document real? (And, I have to admit, due to the detail in the document, it looks real.)

Did the LOCSD make over $700,000 in "payments" to Pandora & Company for "public relations" "tasks?"

If so, when?

Finally, if the document's real, what were the "Celebrations?"

As always, thank you for your time,
Ron

###