RE: Investigation question, please

Hello Director Cesena,

First, thank you for your response (it's nice to see that the LOCSD's email server actually does work, you know, considering that you were the only one of the Directors to respond to my question (reprinted below). I was starting to wonder if the LOCSD even receives emails at all. ; -)

In your response, you write:

"Mr. Gardiner was engaged to investigate Ms. Kivley's actions, not the determinations made by the bankruptcy court judge."

Exactly, and that's why I showed your board how Ms. Kivley's signature is all over those checks, from just last year. It sure looks like she had some sort of "action" in the mess.

You also write:

"I... was not on the Board when the final settlement was approved."

Well, then, aren't you curious, like me and many of your constituents, on how such an egregious "mistake" -- where just a tiny handful of friends of the LOCSD got the Tri-W disaster assessment refund, while "more than 4,000" of your neighbors/constituents are still stuck paying for that failed disaster until the year 2033 -- could happen within the LOCSD? Because, again, I must admit, the situation looks REEEEEELLY terrible. It looks like the LOCSD -- using Kathy Kivley's signature -- cut checks to just their inside friends, and left the other "more than 4,000" PZ property owners twisting in the wind.

And you, and the rest of your board, don't think that those other PZ property owners -- the vast majority that didn't get the refund -- deserve an explanation on how that happened?

I mean, HUH? (Wow. What a great story.)

But, now that I think about it, it probably would have been a huge waste off time anyway, considering that it was Mr. Seitz's idea to hire Mr. Gardiner for the "investigation" [finger quotes] in the first place, so, if your board DID ask Mr. Gardiner to look into why just the friends of the LOCSD got the Tri-W disaster assessment refund, and not the "more than 4,000" other PZ property owners that are stuck paying that exact assessment for the next 18 years (for a non-project that will never exist), it would be asking Mr. Gardiner to "investigate" whether the person that recommended him for the gig was actually being truthful when he called (what looks like a scam) a "mistake," and that would be a gigantic waste of time all the way around, because we couldn't put an ounce of stock in anything that Mr. Gardiner said/wrote on the subject, because he would be so conflicted.

Again, thank you for actually replying to this super-important question (unlike the rest of your board).

I really do appreciate it.

Ron

At 8:35 AM -0800 11/16/15, clcesena@charter.net wrote:

Yes Mr. Crawford, I did receive your e-mails. Mr. Gardiner was engaged to investigate Ms. Kivley's actions, not the determinations made by the bankruptcy court judge. I did not think it appropriate to change the direction of the investigation.

As to your "main question", I have no evidence to indicate that Mr. Seitz is not being truthful. I believe that you are searching for answers in the wrong place as I was not directly involved in the bankruptcy negotiations while on the CSD previously and was not on the Board when the final settlement was approved.

Chuck Cesena

-----------------------------------------

From: "Ron Crawford"
To: "Charles Cesena"

Cc: ""Daniel J. Blackburn", "Neil Farrell"

Sent: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:17:17 -0800
Subject: Investigation question, please

Investigation question, please

Hello Director Cesena,

Just a quick follow-up to my email, below, that I sent to the LOCSD Board of Directors last week.

I was just wondering if, 1) You received a copy of that email, and 2) If you contacted Jim Gardiner and asked him to address those two questions during his investigation into LOCSD accounting?

Again, the main question is: When the LOCSD issued Tri-W assessment refund checks, in 2014, to just a small handful of Los Osos property owners -- property owners with ties to the LOCSD -- while the vast majority of Los Osos property owners did not get a refund, and are still paying that assessment until the year 2033 (for a non-project that will never exist), was that really a "mistake," as Jim Gardiner's friend, Mike Seitz, termed it, or was it something more nefarious?

Thank you in advance for your prompt response,

Ron

- - - -

Dear Honorable Los Osos CSD Board Members,

I recently read that "one should be kind and positive when respectively making a request of a governing body," which is exactly why I am going to be "kind and positive" when I "respectively" make the following request.

I am requesting that, as part of the upcoming "investigation" into recent LOCSD accounting issues, that the scope of the investigation also include whether the refund checks, containing General Manager, Kathy Kively's signature, and that the LOCSD recently issued to just seven Prohibition Zone property owners for the failed Solution Group's Ponding System/Tri-W assessment -- a property tax assessment that started in 2003, and stays on PZ tax bills until the year 2033 -- was, indeed, a "mistake," as LOCSD Counsel, Mike Seitz, put it in a memo from earlier this year (see clip below), OR whether there was another reason why just seven property owners, with documentable ties to the LOCSD, received a refund for the LOCSD's two failed sewer projects.

As I exposed, in 2013, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2013/05/junk-bonds-twice-year-fleecing-of-los.html

... "more than 4,000" Prohibition Zone property owners (including current LOCSD Board members, I will add) are still stuck paying for those two failed sewer disasters -- the 1999-2000 Solution Group's failed ponding system, and the 2000-2005 LOCSD's failed "mid-town" disaster -- until the year 2033.

Then, just last year, I exposed at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2014/10/hey-other-more-than-4000-los-osos.html

... how just seven (that I know of) Prohibition Zone property owners -- with ties to the LOCSD, I later discovered -- received a partial refund on that exact assessment.

So, with all of that in mind, I "respectively" request that the scope of the upcoming investigation include the following two questions:

1) Was issuing those seven refund checks -- that were issued in 2014, and contain LOCSD General Manager, Kathy Kively's signature -- REALLY a "mistake," OR, was there something a bit more nefarious at work there? ('cause, I must admit, the situation looks very suspicious.) And, if it turns out that it actually was a mistake, how in the heck did a mistake of that magnitude happen within the LOCSD? Details, please.

and;

2) Was it just those seven (7) property owners that received the refund, or were there more?

And that's it. That's all I'm requesting to be added to the investigation. Just those two questions.

The "more than 4,000" other Prohibition Zone property owners that are still stuck paying for those two failed disasters until the year 2033 -- sans refund -- certainly deserve an answer to those questions.

The following is a screen-shot from Mr. Seitz's 3/26/15 memo, where he terms the issuance of those seven refund checks a so-called "mistake:"

- - -

 - -

Again, a quick (and very important) clarification in that paragraph: Mr. Seitz writes, "approximately five (5)..."

That number is actually seven (7), as I show in my story. Furthermore, that seven (7) is just the seven that I exposed in my story (thanks to an excellent source). In other words, that number (7) could be higher, we just don't know, which is why that's another very important question that the investigation should include: Exactly how many PZ property owners received the failed Solution Group's Ponding System/Tri-W assessment refund? Was it just the seven I exposed in my story, or, are there more?

Thank you in advance for adding those two questions to the upcoming independent investigation (and, hopefully, it's truly "independent").

Your continued good work and support of the community is much appreciated.

Sincerely,

Ron

P.S. This email automatically posted to my blog, SewerWatch, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/

--

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

--   

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

sewerwatch.blogspot.com