Monthly Archives: October 2016

I just went to pick up tomatoes!

23 Sunday Oct 2016

Posted by in Cambria CCSD, Community Involvement, Local politics, Searching for Cambria's Reality, Words matter

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

The Question

My wife came home from church one morning and shared a simple question that struck a chord with her. It came from Reverend Rod Richards in a talk he had given that morning. The question – “How are we going to be?” I think about that a lot, and mentally apply it to the discussions I have with people who are asking us for their support.

Quick Recap (or “whaaaah, nobody listens to me!!!)

As I have mentioned before, I had submitted a list of questions crafted specifically for the challengers to CCSD Board who had declared and filed to be on the ballot. The goal was to gain insights into their top concerns, their depth of knowledge surrounding the major challenges we face as a community, their level of commitment to fully understand all of the moving parts that go into those issues, and their views on the pressures and provocations that members of the Board often face.

So – short story long – I got no responses. I followed up a few times with no results, but I’ve been able to catch up with some of the candidates in the parking lot of the Vet’s Hall.

The Talk

This week I approached Dewayne Lee, who was manning a spot in the middle of the Farmer’s Market Candidate’s Row with Tom Kirkey, Harry Farmer and Amanda Rice to his right, and Greg Sanders and Gail Robinette to his left. (To all my theater friends, that is Stage Right and Stage Left, respectively.)

The conversation began much like my earlier conversation with Tom Kirkey. I introduced myself and set the stage, recapping the sent questions/no response/follow-up/no response events. Dewayne indicated that he was not unwilling to talk, and gave several reasons as to why he didn’t respond to my written questions. He said “you have already made up your mind” and there was no reason to respond, and that the questions I posed would require detailed knowledge that only someone already on the Board would possess.

(To the first reason – in an earlier post, where I outlined my process for evaluating candidates I wrote “I don’t see the value of changing horses just because you can.” You can read the line in context HERE.  To the second –you can see the questions I posed HERE.)

We moved ahead with the conversation, and exchanged viewpoints on several of the details surrounding the EWS/SWF. We discussed some of the drivers around the need for a stable water supply, the process by which the current facility was selected and built, the costs – known and unknown around the plant’s continued operation, its use, and the long-term fiscal impact on Cambrians of decisions that have been made and will need to be made going forward.

The Interpretation

After some fairly intense discussion, I replayed what I believed I heard in order to not misrepresent his positions and reasoning. I’ll summarize them here.

  • He believes that the EIR should have been done before anything was built. For this reason he believes the current EIR process – review, identify environmental impact, take input, define remediation steps – is not proper.
  • He believes that the CCSD Board and Staff did not act appropriately when the project transitioned from The Emergency Water Supply to the Sustainable Water Facility.
  • He believes that any change from one to the other should be brought before the voters to decide on how the plant should be used.
  • He believes the “flaws” in the current plant design – specifically the brine pond/evaporation method – should have been foreseen and that bad engineering decisions were made. He believes that the discharge process is spreading toxic mist across the area and encroaching on the adjacent State Park.
  • He believes transitioning that brine pond to a water storage area is a good idea.
  • He believes that the CCSD Board and Staff are not answering questions about the long-term costs of dealing with environmental impacts (and in particular the removal of “unrecoverable” waste from the treatment process.)
  • He believes that the ad hoc committee process currently used does not give the public good insight and input into discussions and decisions that are made around critical issues. He believes that standing committees are a more appropriate way to get public involvement and oversight on Board decisions.

(note: both Dewayne and Andy Pickar, who joined us for part of the discussion, corrected my understanding of how ad hoc committees and standing committees work and differ.)

  • He believes, based on his personal review, that the public financial reporting is inaccurate and that the Board is not reflecting the true state of the district’s finances.
  • He believes that growth should be sensibly managed with all factors weighed before more building is allowed.
  • He believes that the public abuse of the Board (accusations of corruption, fraud, incompetence, personal attacks…) has at times gotten out of hand and is unacceptable.
  • He believes that he has the skills and experience to work positively with people of different viewpoints to get thing done.

There were a few more topics we discussed but I believe this list covers the most important ones we explored.

As always…

The candidate’s positions are theirs, and any questions about them should be directed to them. As I have said in previous postings, all of the candidates I have spoken with have invited the public to contact them directly if they want more information.

Final Thoughts

I’m looking forward to wrapping up my visits with the main candidates. Gail Robinette and I started a discussion that we hope to finish in the coming days. I’ve had a few failed attempts at conversation with Harry Farmer, so I don’t have anything more to add to his public comments at both forums and his published literature.

When I’m done perhaps I will have a better sense on how to answer the question “How are we going to be?”

 

Morning Noon and Night

16 Sunday Oct 2016

Posted by in Cambria CCSD, Community Involvement, Local politics, Searching for Cambria's Reality, Social Media, Uncategorized, Words matter

≈ 1 Comment

LETS REVIEW

One of the more crucial and complex steps along the journey to a fully reviewed and permitted Sustainable Water Facility has arrived. After a long and challenging road the 2,000 page document was posted for review and comment, a required step that allows the public, the agencies and other interested parties to read and comment on the environmental impacts and the potential mitigation steps to be taken to ensure our environment will not suffer unnecessary or irreparable harm due to its operation. The document itself can be intimidating. It contains healthy doses of text, charts, statistics, studies and results – a host of information that could overwhelm even the heartiest of us if taken in one large bite. Gaining access to the complete tome requires a lot of downloading and organizing, or a trip to the library to view the hard copy. Pack a lunch!

A Public Workshop was held on Tuesday, October 11th at the Vet’s Hall. The session was fairly well attended, with about 50 or so interested members of the community listening to three primary speakers. The Town Engineer gave a history of the project. The consultants who ran the EIR project followed with more detail on the process they used and finally a walk-through of the document structure. They highlighted the relevant sections of the report, and did an outstanding job of breaking it down into understandable bites.

A main component of the session was Public Comment, where folks came to the podium to have their questions entered into the record. Each question submitted by the public or by interested agencies is recorded, and will be answered in the next stage of the process. 5 speakers asked questions, with the meat of them focusing on long-term operating costs and the methods of removing and transporting waste from the plant’s operating processes. I believe the percentage of waste, or “unrecoverable output” – brine and some residual chemicals used in the treatment process is estimated to be about 8%. I will stop now, as I’ve reached (or exceeded) my level of understanding and don’t wish to be Facebook – shamed by those much smarter than me!

The audience was very focused and friendly. The presenters were terrific, putting together a deck that clearly identified the critical information the public needed and where we could go within the document to find specific information. (As someone who has built and led a Project Management Organization responsible for the documentation and execution of complex technical projects, I was very impressed with the team. I’d hire them!)

The meeting concluded, and some of the attendees milled about, talking and sharing thoughts on the session. It was a nice, relaxed and positive time, only slightly marred by an unidentified individual who was surreptitiously taken pictures of some of us with her cell phone. It was a little creepy, but what the heck – it was a public meeting! My morning dose of Dayquil was beginning to wear off, so I headed out to grab the mail and get home before my coughing set of the earthquake sensors.

HIGH NOON

The Scene. Somewhere in the West (Village). Noon-day sun beating down on the parking lot. A few cars remain. Gathered near the Vet’s Hall, a small group of men speak animatedly. Cue Ennio Morricone music.

“The Blogger” shuffles towards his car, his increasingly sub-medicated cough growing to the level of Val Kilmer’s character of Doc Holiday in “Tombstone”. He reaches his hybrid, unlocks the driver side door and sits. His gaze wanders back to where he just left, falling on the group of men engaged in discussion. He squints, sunglass-less, wondering – “Is that Eli Wallach? And who is the man in black??? He desperately needs more cough suppressant. He then realizes that no, it’s not Eli Wallach, it’s Harry Farmer. And The Man In Black was actually fellow CCSD Board candidate Tom Kirkey. The blogger, who had been reaching out for weeks trying to get a dialog going with Tom and his fellow candidates, saw this as a potential opportunity to break the ice and start that conversation. He coughs, wipes his nose and mouth with a pile of Kleenex, squirts some sanitizer into his hands, and slowly approaches the group. A flute/ocarina/choir call and response echoed in his head. The sun grew hotter. Scarecrows stood and watched in mute expectation. Eyes meet. A hand is extended in greeting, identity revealed. It begins. 

“I’m a tough dude.”

“I could use a cough drop”

OK, so half of that is true. Our discussion did start off a bit tense. I assume Tom’s comment was in response to a question I initially included in an earlier post where I alluded to a candidate who was behaving aggressively. I later changed my post and removed that reference, understanding it was unfair to all the candidates. After a few minutes of discussion, we both grew comfortable enough to have a good exchange around the issues facing the community, and Tom’s views on why he would be a good fit for the CSD Board. I believe a good part of the comfort came from understanding that our backgrounds in Technical Project Management gave us a common language that we could use to “argue” through the issues. (I use “argue” because Tom shared his experience working with Engineers, which mirrored my experience. I remember being a bit surprised and confused with how the different Engineering disciplines worked together in design phases – they “argued” their points because that is how they are trained.) We went through several top-of mind topics. Tom has strong views on how the CCSD is financially managed, stating in his opinion that there is no 5-year plan to manage the budgets. He pointed to the very real difficulty of balancing revenues against expenses, and that running a business in constant deficit was not sustainable.

Tom also shared his thoughts on the use of consultants, offering that the community has a wealth of experienced and thoughtful people who could potentially fill the necessary roles as volunteers. He favors citizen-staffed committees and advisory boards that would assist the Board and Staff and provide a more direct community voice to the process.

Tom shared his views on growth. My interpretation of his position is that there needs to be growth, but it needs to be tightly managed so we keep a sensible balance between expansion and the town’s ability to absorb it – not only water but all infrastructure that is needed to service the community.

We discussed the SWF, and my takeaway is that he favors letting the EIR process run its course, make the best decisions based on the input received, and then proceed with the plant. The plant needs to run to be of value, and he has no desire to see it mothballed.

In discussing the Water Wait List and undeveloped lots, Tom made an interesting comment. He would like to see who is on the list, and determine who truly wants to build a home in Cambria and who is only interested in profiting from their investment. He also shared that in his view Directors who have lots on the Water Wait List should be disqualified from engaging in Board business that relates to the future of those lots.

On the subject of revenues, Tom has some ideas about looking at the wait list, potentially granting more intent to serve letters, collecting the fees but not allowing any building until the water and infrastructure issues are addressed.

Overall, I found our conversation to be frank, straightforward and informative. I think I have a better understanding of Tom and why he is a candidate. He thinks he would do a good job, and that changing even one member of the Board would give some in the community the feeling that their voices are heard and represented.

By the end of our discussion my cough had become constant, so we wrapped up, and fist-bumped our goodbyes. Tom asked that if anyone had any questions or concerns they should reach out to him directly.

A short while after we spoke, Tom followed up with an email. He expressed a bit of concern that, with all contentiousness around the election, he didn’t want his positions to be misquoted or misunderstood. I sympathize with his concerns, and want to restate that my blog reflects my point of view based on my interpretations and observations of what I see and hear. Each candidate is the final arbiter of their own positions, and they all have expressed a willingness to discuss them with the community.

ENCORE!

Thursday evening brought Cambrians a second opportunity to see and hear the candidates vying for the three Director slots up for grabs. This Forum, sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce and moderated by The League of Women Voters, would be the only time where all candidates – challengers and incumbents – agreed to participate. Unfortunately, Tom Kirkey had a late family emergency that took him away from the event.

The room filled up quickly – a very good turnout of interested citizens. Questions were gathered from the audience, the contestants took the stage, and the forum began. After each candidate delivered opening remarks, the question and answer session began… and quickly faltered. It was unclear how the process was going to work, and the first question was delivered to the candidate least likely to have a relevant answer. After a few fits and starts, things seemed to smooth out, but in reality the entire rest of the session was not very crisply managed.

The candidates all performed as expected, with few surprises in the answers given and positions taken. There were a few moments that were a bit rough – particularly when a question was raised about rehabilitating certain wells that had been contaminated by chemicals from a gasoline leak. Director Sanders gave a detailed response about the well, the contaminants, and the monitoring by various agencies. He stated that the well should not be used until all contamination was gone. Dewayne Lee agreed with him. Then, when it was her turn to respond, Director Rice said that the well had, in fact, been rehabilitated and was now free of contaminants. This very different response from two sitting directors was surprising and a bit unsettling. A few other audience questions went around the table, including one about the perceived difference in rates paid by commercial customers versus residential customers. Director Rice, who was on the committee that ultimately proposed the rate structure now in place, gave the most credible answer, as one would expect.

There was another moment of discomfort when candidate Harry Farmer implied through an answer he gave that the CCSD Board is lying to the public. Director Sanders asked for clarification – was Mr. Farmer accusing the Board of lying? Mr. Farmer replied with an affirmative head nod and raised hands in the universally recognized “DUH!!!” gesture.

Candidates gave their closing remarks (after another bout of confusion around how long those statements could be) and the session came to a close. I don’t know if any minds were changed, or if any decisions were made about who will get the votes. Overall, I felt like it was a nice evening out with the community. Except for the second instance of surreptitious camerawork. An audience member, who had been popping around the room filming the event, walked past my row with her cellphone held waist high, filming each person as she walked past us. I watched the screen as she passed the folks sitting next to me. Real James Bond stuff there!

Next time – my chat with Gail Robinette.

 

I was there – in spirit!

13 Thursday Oct 2016

Posted by in Cambria CCSD, Community Involvement, Local politics, Searching for Cambria's Reality, Words matter

≈ 1 Comment

My wife and I went on a long-planned multi-week trip that took us (ok, me) away from the fun and frolic of Cambria politics. In the time leading up to our journey, and through the weeks we were away, things continued along the bumpy bubbling path towards the November elections. In addition to the Community Services District Board of Directors election, where three seats are up for grabs, the Cambria Community Healthcare District Election has heated up, with many of the same passionate behaviors on display. I have spent very little time on that situation, though I hope to dig in a bit more before November.

There have been three sessions that have occurred since last we spoke – The monthly Cambria Community Services District meeting, a sponsored Candidate’s Forum for those running for three CCSD Director positions, and a public information session where the community could give input and ask questions about the recently released Draft Environmental Impact Review document for the Sustainable Water Facility.

Since I was away, I had to watch a combination of live-streamed and archived footage of the first two events. In both cases, there was a significant amount of noise leading to sessions. I’ll do my best to capture my thoughts and observations from both, though some of the “color” will be missing.

*********************************************************************

CCSD BOARD MEETING

The Community Services District received a bit of a jolt when the long-serving and highly valued Waste Water Systems Supervisor submitted his resignation. This came at a particularly inopportune time, as next level testing of the Sustainable Water Facility was coming up quickly, and his expertise and steady hand was a critical part of the plan.

Word of his departure began to spread among the community, and the posting of the Agenda for the upcoming meeting contained reference to the resignation. As difficult as his resignation was to hear, the reasons he gave in his resignation letter pulled the cover off a long-brewing problem that, when exposed, caused quite an uproar among different parts of the community.

In his letter, he stated:

“In the current situation I am in with the demands placed on staff by members of the community, who feel as though it is their duty to act mulishly against the district and its staff, I feel as though the district needs my full, undivided attention. This ultimately takes time away from my family, and I realize that this isn’t the district’s intention.“I think you and the board are on the right path and have the community’s best interest in mind. I have come to the conclusion that I can no longer work in a community where people threatened my job and my livelihood for political reason. Nor can I work in a community where that sort of attack is considered acceptable by members of the public.  “I have put in an extreme amount of hard work and energy to make the water system in Cambria the best I possibly can. In my nearly 10 years of service with the district, I have regularly been treated poorly by members of the community who think that I am overpaid, I don’t do anything and I am out to ruin their water system and waste their money. “I can no longer continue to work in that sort of abusive environment. Thank you for the years of service.”

DIGITAL DRUMBEATS

Soon Social Media was lighting up with opinions – some claimed it was all a political game to cover up mistreatment of employees by the GM. Others claimed the poor guy was just overworked and should have left years ago. Still others pointed to a long list of other employees who had left the district over the past few years – evidence of ongoing employee dissatisfaction. I don’t recall anyone asking the true question – what if it was true, and he did leave due to community member’s harassment?  What should the community do if it were proven that the claims were real and legitimate? After all, there are plenty of documented (and boasted-about) instances of people showing up with photographs, notes, and charts tracking employee activities. Some have boasted of following employees in district vehicles. Other claims include standing in the parking lot of the CCSD offices and logging the comings and goings of employees. In short – yeah, I believe it happened and probably still does. I imagine that, with a little effort a significant amount of data could be collected that would document the number of phone calls, letters, requests for information, reports, complaints and other related contact not only with the CCSD, but the multiple agencies that interact with and have responsibility for activities around the CCSD and it’s operations. That might tell a very interesting story.

GIMME GIMME GIMMME  

A related topic was brought up by the General Manager in his report -ongoing public information requests which, in his view were excessive and deliberate attempts to hinder the CSD’s ability to conduct business. He cited recent requests and described the impact on staff who had to research and respond to them. He acknowledged the public’s right to request and receive information, but stressed his view that many of these requests amounted to (my words) deliberate harassment.

I OBJECT!!!

After the GM’s comments, the board had a discussion on the issue. Director Rice challenged the GM, and called his comments unprofessional. Her view was that it was impossible to encourage public participation in the process of government and at the same time chastise those who so engage. The exchange grew heated, with the GM passionately defending his position and his employees, and restating his opinion that there needs to be some reasonable judgment around the use or abuse of the public right to know.

This is a real issue, and deserves a real, sober conversation. How much is too much? Who decides? What constitutes abuse – on both sides of the question? Is this an issue that can be measured in black and white? Are there processes in place that govern this issue? I assume there is some statute or law that would “punish” a public official or department found to have denied legally requested information. Is there a law or statute that could be applied to individuals or groups found to be deliberately flooding agencies with requests for information with the goal of gumming up the works and gaining an advantage?

My view is that the public has the right to information, but also has an obligation to exercise that right with reasonable care, and not abuse the process for personal or political purposes.

DEATH, TAXES AND PUBLIC COMMENT

An adjacent issue also comes to mind – just what is and is not allowed during public comment at public meetings? This issue often comes up, where a citizen submits a request for public comment, is granted a time (3 minutes in the case of CCSD meetings) and uses that time to basically abuse the Board and/or staff, often with accusations of all manner of nefarious activity from incompetence to corruption. How is this helpful? How is this reasonable? How is this not challenged? More importantly, why do people feel they have carte blanche to launch these attacks on public officials, and in the case of the CCSD – citizen volunteers who put a lot of themselves into making positive contributions to the community? I accept and understand that we all at some points in our lives feel the need to express anger, sadness, dismay or puzzlement at things that affect us. I don’t get why it acceptable to continually go over the top, month after month, with no reasonable accountability. Rights? How about Responsibility?

QUICK, GET THE RAINBOWS AND LOLIPOPS!

I don’t mean to paint a gloomy picture of our community democracy in action. Often times fellow Cambrians will stand at the podium and share positive comments, thank the Board and staff for their work, highlight an accomplishment or congratulate a success. Citizens also stand at the podium and ask hard, uncomfortable questions in well articulated, well reasoned ways, seeking answers or explanations without resorting to ugliness. It can be done! Maybe not as entertaining or stimulating as a good rant, but hey – we’re here to do the people’s business. If it’s theater you want, the Pewter Plough Playhouse or CCAT are always mounting a production or two you can enjoy.

SPEAKING OF THEATER…

A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE…

One of the staples of the American political season is the public candidate’s forums – often one of the only chances the community gets to see and hear all the candidates share their views and answer questions in a public setting. These forums – debates, town halls, moderated Q&A sessions – provide an opportunity for candidates to get in front of the community and represent themselves alongside their fellow contestants.

In the case of the Cambria CSD election, things were a bit unusual. A political organization – Free and Equal Elections Foundation – sponsored a candidate’s forum, moderated by the Foundation’s “founder” and co-moderated by a politically active actor with a background in supporting liberal and sometimes controversial causes. OK – so far so good. There was a major sticking point however, which led to a LOT of community angst and aggravation. Although all candidates were invited to attend, two of the incumbents declined to participate. Their reason for declining – they felt that the foundation’s founder and forum moderator was biased and unfit to be a moderator based on her public comments, as well as a sponsored political ad calling for changes to the makeup of the current Board. The person in question publicly stated “I stand as the Founder of The Free and Equal Elections Foundation and an expert in the electoral arena for almost twenty years. I’ve never seen such a level of corruption as I’m seeing with the CCSD Board.” This statement, along with many others made in public comment directed by name at one of the incumbents, made the decision not to attend understandable. A third incumbent did attend and participate. This incumbent had conversely been publically praised and supported by the moderator, and I assume she didn’t share the sense of potential bias her colleagues on the Board felt.

SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE, A COMEDY TONIGHT

Knowing I was going to be away for the Forum, I submitted a series of questions that I thought were relevant, and particularly directed at challengers who do not have the advantage of a long public service record to demonstrate their positions or actions on critical issues facing the community. These questions, captured in my blog of September 19 were also shared with the Forum’s moderator, and discussed in more detail at her request via offline messages prior to the session.

I was able to view the archived video of the forum when we returned from our trip. Though there were several technical glitches that interrupted parts of the recording, I believe most of the event was captured and fairly represented the forum.

Despite all the tumult, the forum proceeded as planned, and a good number of interested community members came to see and hear the candidates make their case. For all the noise before hand, the forum was pretty uneventful though a few things did stand out a bit for me.

The first thing that struck me was that it is fairly difficult to get any substantive dialog in these types of discussions. All candidates answer the same questions, but are time-limited which made it challenging for anyone to go much beyond first level responses. It does, however, present the opportunity for candidates to draw distinctions between themselves and the others, and give the community a sense of who they are and how they conduct themselves. This is a place where presence and personality can be helpful.

The incumbent on the panel was in an interesting position. She had the clear advantage of her experience as a board member, which gave her first-hand knowledge of the workings of the District, the data behind many of the pressing issues, and the thought processes and steps that led to decisions and actions, which helped her highlight her experience. The down side was that she was in a few instances put in an uncomfortable position of maintaining the confidentiality required of her position. Overall she did a good job of balancing these factors. Her shining moment came late in the event, when a fellow candidate made mention, for the second or third time, how he sympathized with her because of the way she was treated by her fellow Directors. She gave a great response, thanking her fellow candidate for his comment then clearly stating – “I am not a victim” and that if she felt that way she would not be running for re-election. It was a strong moment for her and her candidacy.

Another moment that made me perk up was when a late entry, write-in candidate spoke plainly to the community, calling out three individuals who often speak during public comment at Board meetings. He challenged them by basically saying if you think you have better ideas, stand for election and let the public decide if they’re better. This led to a brief exchange when one of the people named by the candidate yelled out her name and objected to the comment. The candidate replied “well I object to a lot of things you say!” Her reply included the first time I have ever heard “crap crap” used in a sentence.

Again, not being in the room in real time it is hard for me to give an accurate sense of the mood, but from my viewing it appeared the event was mostly civil and positive. None of the new candidates really made much of an impression on me, but based on feedback after the event their supporters felt they did well. Much like the current Presidential elections the debates probably will not move the needle one way or the other for any candidate. The event itself seemed to be well-run, and the “celebrity” factor neither added or detracted from the overall event.

A second session, sponsored by The Chamber of Commerce and moderated by The League of Women Voters is scheduled for Thursday Oct. 13th. I plan on attending that session in person. Not sure what shirt I’ll wear.

MORE ON THAT, PLUS THE EIR REVIEW AND MY CHAT WITH TOM KIRKEY WHEN WE RETURN…