The Final Frontier

01 Tuesday Nov 2016

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Cambria, Cambria community services district, CCSD, Gail Robinette, Gail Robinette Cambria, local board meetings

Finally!

After many weeks of missed opportunities I was finally able to coordinate schedules with incumbent Board President Gail Robinette. We had previously agreed to meet but due mostly to my lack of follow-up that meeting never got scheduled. We picked a date and time, and agreed to meet at the Coffee Den on Main Street. Realizing that our appointment was late in the morning, I went ahead and made my own whole wheat toast.

When Gail arrived, we ordered coffee and then discussed where we would have our conversation. It was at this moment I became aware of “THE VAN”. I’d heard talk of this vehicle, often in whispered tones, voices unsure what was behind the sliding door. Walls lined with maps, charts and satellite recon pictures of the greater Cambria area? Multiple screens linked to cameras secreted in scarecrows around town? Rows of textbooks, notebooks and coloring books? Amway? I was all atwitter, nearly spilling my small regular coffee on my blue shirt.

Space…

Gail swung the Starship Robinette into a corner space, opened the door and invited me in. My mouth was dry. My legs a bit weak, Voice a mere rasp. Yes, my cold still lingered. I wasn’t going to give up, though. I had carried on through post-meeting high noon encounters and Farmer’s Market debates, all the while trying to stay upright. Now, with the secrets of “The Van” about to be revealed, I reached down for that last reserve of Robitussin and stepped in. And it was…

Very nice! Thoughtfully equipped, sensibly laid out, comfortably appointed. Practical, low-key and designed to maximize the space. Detail was everywhere, but not in a flashy or attention-seeking way. The van was neither Scooby nor A-Team. And it made perfect sense. Very much like Gail Robinette.

The Back Story

Our conversation was very different from the ones I had with the other candidates. Gail spent a fair amount of time sharing her journey, speaking lovingly (yet reservedly) about her memories of people who made profound impacts on her life. A second grade teacher who recognized something in this young girl, and offered the interest, encouragement and mentorship that ignited a love of learning that guided Gail’s life. It carried her through her pursuit of education and through her long career as an educator, administrator, writer and consultant. This conversation wasn’t about her public service, but about why she feels public service matters. It certainly wasn’t all about her – she asked me about my background and experiences. We shared our journeys that led us to Beautiful Cambria. Rather than a deep political discussion between candidate and writer, we got to know each other as individuals. And then two hours had gone by. Gail had to attend a long list of meetings, and I was overdue for a long slug of cough syrup. We agreed there was more to discuss, specifically around the upcoming election.

The Sequel

We were able to reconnect the following week, again using The Starship as our conference room. The doors and window were opened – true transparency – and we dug in to the issues.

The discussion was, once again, more of an education. Gail has a long record of public service, so there isn’t much unknown about her positions and actions on key issues, nor any doubt about her support for the Sustainable Water Facility. What was helpful to me was hearing the history of how we got to the current situation.

Gail went deep, sharing examples of meetings, workshops, reviews, and conferences that included citizens, environmentalists, urban planners, disaster management professionals and government agencies – a laundry list of participants you would want involved when you are seeking the best possible solutions. Gail noted each participating agency and when they engaged – making me question much of what I hear from those who claim that the CSD has ignored or avoided those same agencies. She hit all the decision points while highlighting the methods used to keep the public informed and involved.

Warp Speed

With time again growing tight, we moved a bit more quickly through a few topics that I saw as important. First, I asked her the same thing I asked all the incumbents – her perception of how the Board operates as a team. She was very thoughtful, and honest. She believes that overall they work fairly well together, though there are issues and events that can and do cause some stress. She sees beyond the conflict and looks for ways to navigate through the tough and sometimes contentious discussions to get to reasonable solutions. She is a firm believer that her role as President is to help find those solutions. She also stresses that every Director’s vote carries equal weight. Her approach to reasoned and inclusive problem solving is a reflection of her life philosophy; stay calm, stay positive and stay focused.

I asked her about the water wait list. Specifically the oft-stated opinion that it is loaded with people looking to make windfalls from selling when water connections are made, her own lot that sits in the queue, and the idea that she should recuse herself from any decisions that might result in personal benefit. Her response is clear – if people bought lots with the sole goal of making a big return, well perhaps they weren’t very good investors; she points to the long years of paying and waiting with no clear end in sight. As to her own position, Gail simply states that she has spent a good amount of her own money to look into the issue, and feels confident that her actions are legal, ethical and in no way affect how she acts and votes on water issues.

On public trust, transparency and communication Gail acknowledges the balancing act she and her fellow Directors face as they do their jobs. Gail believes (as do each of the candidates I’ve spoken with) that there is a need for continued dialog and information exchanges between the CCSD and the community. She supports more positive community involvement, including an appropriate use of standing committees as a method of collaboration and governance.

When it comes to individual dialog, Gail was pretty frank. She frequently meets with members of the community, and welcomes any opportunity to listen to input and feedback. She takes it a step farther then anyone else has so far. She is not interested in meeting with someone who has the intent of harassing or causing deliberate disruption or intimidation. She respects the community, but her experience has shown her that there are sometimes those who approach with less than good intent. It was a bit sobering to hear that, and to read between the lines – a read that leaves me with the impression that she has experienced things in her public service that give her reason to be vigilant. Food for thought.

Epilogue

Another two hours had flown by, and we wrapped up and said our goodbyes. Gail energized the transporter and beamed me back to Main Street. Thinking back on our time together, I don’t know that I learned anything policy-wise that I didn’t already know about Gail Robinette, CCSD Board President and Candidate for Re-Election. I did learn a whole lot about Gail Robinette, teacher, leader and peaceful warrior for the community she loves and serves.

A pretty good episode!

I just went to pick up tomatoes!

23 Sunday Oct 2016

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

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

Amanda Rice, DeWayne Lee, Gail Robinette, Greg Sanders, Harry Farmer, Rev. Rod Richards, Tom Kirkey

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 Michael Calderwood 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 11^th 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 Michael Calderwood 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. 13^th. 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…

Candidates, I’d like to know…

19 Monday Sep 2016

Posted by Michael Calderwood in Cambria CCSD, Community Involvement, Local politics, Words matter

≈ 2 Comments

Thoughts From The Back Of The Room Plane – In Absentia Version

I will be unable to attend the candidates forum, but I have some questions I’d like to pose.

Candidates

Given the complexities of Cambria’s issues, what specific skills and experience will you bring should you be elected?

What skill or experience do you see that is lacking in the current board roster?

How experienced are you in working collaboratively in high stress situations? Can you give specific examples of successes?

How much specific experience or knowledge do you have in the key areas of Water Management and Infrastructure?

How familiar are you with local, county state and federal laws and regulations governing the issues Cambria is facing and will face over the next 4 years?

Can you identify specific issues – policies, decisions…that you currently take issue with?

What information – data, reports, studies…do you rely on to make your judgements?

If elected, what steps would you take to ensure the safety and stability of our water supply and supporting infrastructure?

How familiar are you with the current SWF?

Have you toured the facility and/or had in-depth discussions with the responsible people on the CSD staff?

Have you done an analysis on the current Draft EIR?

What are your thoughts on the recent legal decisions regarding the Landwatch lawsuit?

What are your views on ongoing litigation?

Are you independent, willing and able to make decisions based on the overall good of the community?

Can you give more specific detail around your positions on the tone and tenor of the exchanges between the greater CCSD and the community?

How will you work to bridge the perceived divides, and bring more civility into the overall discourse?

Temperament – there has been a lot of talk about “bullying”. What is your view on how a board member should behave in the face of overly harsh and vitriolic comments?

What is your view on public civility, and what would you – or what do you do to foster mature behaviors from all sides?

Should voters expect consistently high standards of behavior from elected Board members, even under the relentless pressure the board faces as the execute their responsibilities?

How do you change the perception of some voters who may view you as “colorful local characters” rather than serious-minded, experienced and capable leaders who can and will put in all the very hard work required of a Director?

I look forward to your answers to these and other important questions as we move forward as a community.

Follow up …

19 Monday Sep 2016

Posted by Michael Calderwood in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

I received an email from Tom Gray, former PIO for the CCSD in response to my comments around a simple document describing the Sustainable Water Facility. I am posting it here (with Tom’s permission) and hope it will be helpful to folks looking for a simple, crisp writeup.

Thanks, Tom for the response!

SWF Writeup – Tom Gray

First, I can give you a quick summary of what the project does and how it does it. Essentially, the SWF is our supplemental water supply, designed both to cover shortages in drought emergencies (which it is currently permitted to do) and to add a third water source to our portfolio of aquifers — San Simeon and Santa Rosa Creek — to provide the more efficient and environmentally sound water production.

The latter function is what we are seeking to ensure in the regular Coastal Development Permit. You can think of it as an optimizing function. A fully permitted SWF, for instance, would allow the CCSD to take more water from the San Simeon Creek aquifer in the summer, so that it can ease up on pumping from the sensitive Santa Rosa Creek aquifer, where subsidence and saltwater intrusions have historically been threats. You might think of the SWF as a relief pitcher. Right now, we can only call it in from the bullpen when the starter is exhausted, the opposing team has the bases loaded with one out in the ninth, and we’re hanging on to a one-run lead. Under the regular CDP, we hope to use the SWF more like a long reliever, stepping in for the starter after six innings to save his arm for his next start and to defend a decent lead.

As for a quick description of the project and how it works, this has been the same from the beginning. It treats water pumped from a well that picks up a mix of treated waste water (from the percolation ponds), ocean-influenced brackish water and fresh ground water flowing from upstream. It treats this through filtration, reverse osmosis and UV sterilization, then pumps it via an injection well to replenish the aquifer where we have our production wells. One difficulty in labeling it is that it does some “desalination” (of the brackish water) but does waste water recycling too. As technology and regulation make more direct re-use of our waste water possible, it may evolve into mainly a recycling facility, with desal just a sideline.

You also may be wondering why the name was changed. The best answer is that the name changed to reflect the next phase in permitting. The original “emergency” permit was always intended — by the County, explicitly in the permit itself — to be just a stopgap until a regular permit was approved. And, as I note above, the facility under the regular permit would be used not only to respond to emergency shortages but to prevent them as well. That, in my view, is why the “emergency” tag was dropped. The “sustainable” label is apt for several reasons. One is the facility’s recycling function, which enables us to make much better use of our limited water resources than we have done before. Another is the environmental enhancement built into the project. Most notable in this respect is its recharge of the San Simeon Lagoon with 100 GPM of fresh water when it is running. Another reason (and this is just my personal opinion) is that the design of the treatment plant is tailor-made for eventual operation from solar power, once the money becomes available.

The SWF and the EWS are the same project, of course. Any new work proposed in the Supplemental EIR is designed to address environmental impacts, especially in the area of brine disposal and the “growth-inducing” effect of having a more secure water supply. The water treatment system remains is the same, with no expansion of capacity.

What I’ve Been Up To – Part II

14 Wednesday Sep 2016

Posted by Michael Calderwood in Cambria CCSD, Community Involvement, Local politics, Searching for Cambria's Reality

≈ 2 Comments

This is my quest…

As I continued my quest to better understand this community, I thought about some of the negatives I’ve been hearing about how this community is managed. So I figured I’d ask around.

Claim – The CCSD is in tight with the business community, favoring their wants and needs over the residents. There have been grumblings about secret meetings, special interests, hidden ties… real made-for-TV type intrigue. It has been charged that the “Business Community” gets special treatment and consideration from the CCSD Board and Staff. The thought process I heard was another exercise in pretzel logic; two Directors own or have owned businesses in town. They are/were members of the Chamber of Commerce. Ergo – they favor their business cronies over the citizens. I have a hard time picturing some of our local business people huddled in smoke-filled back rooms dividing up the Pinedorado spoils, or skimming off the top of the American Legion Pancake Breakfast just to keep feeding those desperados on the Board. I mean, who smokes anymore?

Down on Main Street…

My conversation starter was pretty simple. I laid out the suspicion that the business community received special treatment from the CCSD and asked for comments.

First stop – Chamber of Commerce.

First reaction – “what??? The CCSD? They are the water and sewer provider. We really don’t interact much with them.” Pretty much the end of that conversation.

Next stop – a Main Street business that has been in town for quite some time. The proprietors are also Cambrian homeowners, so they receive both commercial and non-commercial services. Same conversation starter. Same semi – “are you serious” look. Then a recitation of the challenges of running a business in town, managing and balancing the use of water – a balance that has, for this business owner, both financial and moral impacts. This owner shared a list of decisions that are made around water usage. And as for special consideration, well, the response was a bit forceful and colorful. None. Nil. If anything, it was the opposite – no breaks are given.

We then spoke about the non-commercial side of being a CCSD customer. There was not a lot of love for the Board actions, and some discomfort around how we got to the high cost of the new Sustainable Water Facility. But there was also a pragmatic view – we built it, we’re paying for it, let’s use it. When asked about growth, the position remained pragmatic. “Why would we keep people from building their dream home? Stay controlled, follow the plans that exist, and be fair. New faces, new ideas, new blood will help keep Cambria the vital, interesting place it is.”

I reached out to other business owners in town, and got similar feedback to the main question. I’ll continue to reach out to fill in the blanks.

Conservation for conservation’s sake is important; nobody I’ve spoken with is cavalier about it. The financial impacts of exceeding water allotments can be significant, and in a town that has such peaks and troughs of visitors every expense is critical.

Directors

I reached out to Director Greg Sanders to see if we might find some time to sit down and discuss the issues of the day. I was really looking forward to this session for a lot of reasons. One of the main reasons is probably obvious – he has been on the receiving end of a lot of negative comments, and his integrity and character have been attacked by some who believe that his “day job” as an attorney with a firm that represents businesses who oppose environmentalists (a simple description, I concede, but it doesn’t need to be more than that), aligns him with the dark forces that are skulking about, looking for the opportunity to swoop in and turn Cambria into, (as one activist said) “freakin’ Monticito!” Director Sanders, who has served the citizens of Cambria for many years in many ways, can be very “lawyerly” in his interactions with people at Board meetings, and it has on occasion gotten a bit uncomfortable. He is also incredibly knowledgeable about the history of Cambria’s water situation, and has served as a Board member through many of the key periods of discussion, progress and setbacks.

We met for a light breakfast at Linn’s. (again – love the whole wheat toast.) We discussed a range of topics, from the history of the SWF, to his views on growth and sustainability for Cambria. We touched on a couple of hot-button topics – specifically the perceived struggles the Board has in communicating with each other and the community. We discussed the stated lack of trust, and the accusations of “corruption” leveled by some.

I asked about what I see is a lack of simple, clear descriptions of the SWF. I suggested that a basic document might answer some community questions about what the plant is, what it does, how it works – as well as what it is not and does not do. He acknowledged the value of such a document, but suggested that the pending Draft EIR would address a lot of the questions. The complexity of the multiple pieces of the puzzle that add up to the overall future direction of Cambria probably can’t be simplified, but I still think there are intermediate steps that could be taken to pare things down to a more easily understood level.

We continued the discussion with Board dynamics. Greg acknowledged my comments and observations that at times it appears as if the Directors don’t communicate among themselves, leading to some surprising discussions in the monthly public meetings. While outlining the challenges of time, complexity and the Brown Act rules the Board operates under that can contribute to the situation, he also said that he could do a better job in fostering better working relationships with his fellow Directors.

The issue that really showed me the most about Greg Sanders the person was the discussion we had around the personal attacks launched his way by some members of the community. It was obvious that this pained him deeply – not only the noise directed at him but at other members of the Board and CSD Staff. He stated simply – there is no corruption, no collusion with secret groups of developers, no hidden agenda for future explosive growth. His view is that Cambria’s growth has real limits, and the current rules in place reflect that limit. He cited infrastructure, protection of natural resources and the ability to absorb all the things that come with excessive growth as reasons that he believes Cambria cannot tolerate the unrestrained growth people fear.

Finally, he said very clearly that he is available to speak with anyone about his views and positions, and to listen to concerns and feedback from the community. He said he would go to people’s homes and meet with interested groups, and he was in the book if anyone wanted to contact him. He will not engage in obvious “ambushes” -my word, not his. I don’t blame him, or anyone else for taking a position like that – there are enough examples of this type of behavior at Board meetings, in Letters To The Editor and on Social Media.

My Oldest Brand New Best Friend Who I Never Met

I got an email from Director Mike Thompson, giving me some feedback on my blog. He expressed agreement with some of my observations, and said he thought some of my other views were way off base. The nerve!!!

We agreed to meet for lunch to discuss his feedback and exchange views. Now I know what you’re thinking – Linn’s and again with the whole wheat toast! Partially true – we met at Linn’s Café on Bridge Street, and it was Philly Cheesesteak this time. I learned a lot during this meeting, including that I do not like red onion in my cheesesteak.

Mike came prepared with several pages of notes. He went into his thoughts around my first blog, where I questioned why the GM’s contract discussion was pulled from the agenda. He explained that he was getting feedback from his constituents that they were not pleased with the contract terms as presented, and after giving it a lot of thought came to the conclusion that the right thing to do was to pull back, re-examine the contract and come back with something that would be in better alignment with the community’s wishes. I appreciate his explanation, and his willingness to listen to the people he represents, rethink his position and take the action he felt was appropriate.

We talked about many of the same things I discussed with Amanda and Greg. I came away feeling that some of the “disconnects” I sensed among the Directors aren’t as big as I thought. I also came away with a better sense of Mike Thompson – a straight shooter who is committed to the community he serves.

I continue to be impressed with the openness and willingness to dialogue I found with the three Directors I have met with so far. I have not yet found the time to speak with the remaining two Directors, Gail Robinette and Jim Bahringer. Gail and I did have a brief conversation after the last public meeting and agreed we would set a time to meet for a more in-depth conversation. I’ll reach out to Jim when I’m sure I’m spelling his last name correctly.

The Challengers

I did have a very brief conversation with Dewayne Lee at the September 4^th meeting; I introduced myself and mentioned that I would like to find a time to have a conversation around his platform. He agreed and said to give him a call, which I will do over the coming weeks.

Harry Farmer and I spoke briefly at the Farmer’s Market this past Friday. It was a bit awkward, as he was one of the attendees at the gathering I was asked to leave. He actually was the guy who read the infamous secret “blue shirt” note out loud. We briefly discussed his platform, and he gave me his flyer that highlights his views. I’d like to get back with him to discuss them in more detail.

I haven’t reached out to Mr. Kirkey or Mr. Walters yet, but plan to soon. My goal is to be as well-educated as possible before the November election.

Here’s my process for determining who gets my vote.

Incumbents

Are they doing a good job overall?
Do they demonstrate integrity and intelligence?
Do things get done (understanding that there will always be some things that fall short.)
Can I live with their decisions and positions that don’t align with my views?

Challengers

Will the candidate bring a skill or experience to the office that will make it more effective?
Are candidates running on single issues, or popular buzz words?
Can they demonstrate that they understand the big picture, and demonstrate the ability to work as a member of an elected team?
Can they demonstrate critical, independent thinking, and stand on their positions under pressure?

I don’t see the value of changing horses just because you can.

All Politics Is Local…

We expect the best from our representatives. We should expect the best of ourselves. Honesty without compassion is cruelty. So as Elvis said…

Somebody asked…an interlude

31 Wednesday Aug 2016

Posted by Michael Calderwood in Community Involvement, Searching for Cambria's Reality, Uncategorized, Words matter

≈ 1 Comment

Beautiful Cambria

Our daughter in-law Tatiana always calls it Beautiful Cambria. Her musical Portuguese accent makes it sound almost magical. Main Street is lined with a fantastic range of galleries, small restaurants, antiques shops, winetasting rooms, small local breweries, plus a church, two theaters – a slice of American heaven that my wife and I stumbled upon during a drive up the west coast. With the ocean to the west and the mountains to the east, Cambria sits in what I believe is one of the most perfect spots in California. It captured our hearts the first time we visited, and drew us back as we readied ourselves for the next adventure in our lives. The many feet of snow we found on our roof when we returned to our home in Connecticut made the serene, temperate climate of Cambria even more undeniable. So, here we are!

Beautiful Cambria.

We brought a pared-down representation of our lives with us as we made the transition from East Coast to West. We kept the important things – our favorite art pieces, our musical instruments, some furnishings that hold special memories, and all those important papers we all have tucked away somewhere. We also brought our individual and shared passions. Music. Art. Writing. If you could open our soul that’s what you would find – family, music, the arts. They feed us.

So why this blog?

I also brought with me my long-time interest in communities – how they work, why they thrive, where they struggle and how the people interact. I grew up in a Bronx neighborhood, on a street that had almost as many people as the whole of Cambria. That street linked to other streets, defining the neighborhood. A short distance away the pattern repeated, forming another neighborhood, then another, and finally a Borough, which linked to 4 other Boroughs to make New York City. 8 million plus neighbors – one heck of a big community.

With kids came a move from the urban to the suburban lifestyle. We made our way through a few towns, always looking for the better school, the more comfortable house, a better neighborhood for everyone. In each town I’d try to find the local government. It is amazing, and in some ways comforting, to see the same people engaging in the different flavors of community governing. There are the parents, the activists, the earnest and the angry. The one who claims to know everything but knows maybe not so much, and the quiet, determined one who goes in, head down and does the tough work of moving things forward for the good of everyone. There is always a gadfly or two. Always a sage advisor who shares when asked. A reporter or two, a retired someone who hides an amazing well of experience. The anonymous and the active.

Beautiful Cambria. So Unique. So Familiar.

So, what have you been up to?

27 Saturday Aug 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Well, you’ve been very quiet!

It’s been an interesting few weeks since I last posted. With no scheduled CCSD meeting in July, I thought I’d take the time to get out into the community and try to get to know the people and groups that make up the Cambrian quilt. It can be a little too easy to sit back at the meetings and then write up my observations, based on what I see and hear. I realize that there is a difference between small groups of vocal attendees, representing specific attitudes and viewpoints that use the public forum to advocate for their positions. I also realize that there are thousands of Cambrians who don’t go anywhere near those meetings – for a host of reasons. Some feel the vocal few do a good job of representing their views. Others feel that they may be subject to less than friendly treatment if they express a different view. Others feel the whole thing is pointless, and they will speak when they are ready, and speak with their vote. And a very large group are hard-working, family-occupied folks who are more focused on the day to day realities of raising their kids, enjoying their retirement, or devoting their energy and passion to dreams delayed by a lifetime of doing other things.

Yo, Diogenes!

So off I went, lamp in hand, searching for everyone’s version of the truth. I had a few cordial email exchanges with different folks with decidedly different views on the how’s and why’s of Cambria life. I’ve been fortunate to build a very rewarding “e-lationship” with a long-time Cambrian who is as knowledgeable and pragmatic as anyone I have ever met. Our exchanges continue to help me get a greater appreciation for the history of the CCSD, the people who have become familiar to me, and – most importantly – the deep, complex and often highly emotionally charged issues that drive the conversation. I hope this relationship will continue.

Those Guys

I had been forwarded an email from the founder of a pro-board, pro-water plant group of Cambrians known as Cambrians For Water (or C4H20) who have banded together to present a unified voice that represents viewpoints and attitudes that have often been overshadowed by the more visible and vocal “Concerned…” groups. The email, directed to the membership of this group (a group which, contrary to what has been whispered, I do not belong to) encouraged members to remain active and participate in the public CSD meetings as a show of support. The group was asked to wear their easily recognizable Blue C4H20 shirts to the meeting. It struck me that with all the smoldering animosity there might be different way to communicate with each other, rather than using the public board meeting as a proxy for the conversation that might be more helpful. So I sent an email to the founder, with my observations, and wondered if there might be another way to go about things; rather than trying to prove who had the bigger T -shirt, see who has the bigger ideas. Maybe a re-visit of positions in a collaborative way might lead us all to better long-term relationships, and more inclusive solutions. I kind of expected a terse reply, but I was pleasantly surprised with the email exchanges that followed. My thoughts and observations were not attacked, but rather welcomed. The exchange led to a very pleasant breakfast meeting at Linn’s (great whole wheat toast!) where we explored the issues in greater depth. Rather than argue or reject my thoughts that at times ran counter to his, he encouraged me to continue my journey and to share what I thought was important or valuable, whatever it might be. I left that meeting feeling pretty good about things. It was a real, grown-up discussion and I believe we both learned from each other.

Who Dat??

Another great exchange occurred when I had the opportunity to sit down with Amanda Rice. Amanda is a sitting Director on the CCSD Board, and is up for re-election in November. Amanda is very different from her fellow Directors; this can be strikingly obvious at times especially when the entire Board is assembled. Prior to being elected to the Board, she had been very active in issues that affected Cambria, from environmental policy to fiscal accountability. She continues to advocate aggressively as a member of the Board and enjoys strong support from many in the community who believe those issues need rise above all else. It sometimes seems like she is the 1 in a 4 against 1 equation, though she gets things done with intelligence, persistence and commitment. Our first conversation was very positive. We shared our journey to Cambria, touching on our careers and experiences that formed our current worldviews. She asked me to expand on the thoughts and observations I had blogged about, and gave me her views on the same. We then moved into a mini-brainstorming session, exploring how we might find better ways to improve some of the issues that are driving a wedge between the CCSD and segments of the community, and between different demographics in Cambria. We didn’t agree on everything. We challenged each other’s views. We spoke with great frankness. And it was all done with respect and an appreciation for the goal of making things a little bit better for everyone. Amanda encouraged me to consider taking a run at one of the Board seats that are up for vote in November. We continue to talk on occasion, and I feel completely comfortable calling her or dropping her an email with a thought, observation or question.

On a Roll

So – 3 for 3 in positive conversations! I was feeling pretty good about my education, and pressed on with my quest. I had been engaging on and off with a group on Facebook, having mostly pleasant, but sometimes edgy (in my view) exchanges around the larger CCSD Board and staff performance. The majority of the active posters seem to me to be more in the anti-CSD camp. They fall into a few categories – financial responsibility, environmental responsibility, governmental transparency, and a handful of “corrupt, greedy, anti-environment pro-builder/realtor/explosive growth ” conspiracy theorists. Some check all the boxes, but the majority of posters seem to be reasonable, smart and concerned people who find the page a good place to share thoughts, concerns and ideas. I try to be polite and factual in my posts, and if I don’t know something I’ll dig for answers before posting. As in any remote interaction, there can be misunderstandings or interpretations that could cause stress among posters. It is an imperfect medium, but it is one way to share our thoughts.

Will The Circle Be Unbroken

The following meeting notice appeared on this page:

**ATTENTION CAMBRIANS** You’re invited to a “Cambria Community Gathering” July 19th (today) from 3:30-4:30pm. This is a weekly meeting. Subjects to consider for discussion include Group organization, Candidates for CSD board, Local Issues, Growth, Taxes and other costs, Balance on the board, Fairness & Accountability. Please message me directly for more details! ❤

“Perfect”, I thought. “I’m a Cambrian. I’m interested in all those things. I would like to be part of that discussion.” So off I went, looking forward to hearing other thoughts and opinions.

Well, the invitation turned out to be a little misleading. When I arrived I was met with a lot of suspicious stares. A voice from across the circle (I think these meetings have to be conducted in a circle) called out “do we have somebody new here?” Well, I knew I had never been to one of these meeting before, so I raised my hand and said, “I’m new!” I then went around the entire circle and introduced myself to every attendee, offering my hand in friendship. After introductions, I stood near the beginning of the group and engaged in some pleasant conversation with a woman who reminded me that we had met before. She began giving me a brief on what the main issues and concerns were that the group was interested in addressing. Then, from across the circle there came an increasingly louder stream of angry words directed at me. It was one of the activists who I had commented on in a blog post. She claimed I had called her a liar – which I did not do but in her mind I guess I did. (This is why I like to write things down – if there are differing ideas on what I have said we can go to the replay and check. I went. I checked. I’m good with what I posted, and her behavior at this meeting just demonstrated the exact things I called out in my blog.) Then, a note was passed around the circle – from my left, then it skipped me and landed with the gentleman sitting to my right who looked at it and read “blue shirt, blue shirt? He’s (pointing at me) wearing a blue shirt. Pointing at another guy and said – he’s wearing a blue shirt.” It was really weird. As this was happening a different woman came storming across the circle, got up in my face – reeeeaaaalllllyyyyclose – and told me I had to leave. Really??? I asked why I had to leave and she said “You have been very disruptive on Social Media.” Huh? I said I was attending as a Cambrian interested in discussing issues, and wasn’t the meeting about fairness and transparency?

“You have to leave.”

At that moment another woman fluttered into the garden; the woman who posted the meeting invite online (and who confirmed the time and place and said she hoped to see me there.) She was not really aware of what was happening, though another member of the circle ran over and was whispering urgently to her. I said hello and questioned why I was being tossed out – what about fairness and transparency – she could only answer that there was a negative energy in the space that she didn’t understand yet. So, I turned to the group, smiled and thanked them for, well, I’m not sure what I was thanking them for, but I was raised to be polite!

A few hours after the meeting I had a pretty detailed exchange with the woman who hosts the Facebook page and posted the meeting invitation. She is a Political Activist with a foundation that purports to foster greater transparency and fairness in Government. I expressed my disappointment that I was not allowed to participate and asked for more clarity on why. She didn’t have a good answer, but mentioned that there was something about a meeting I was a part of that they weren’t allowed to attend… a meeting that was a mystery to me! I gave her a full brief of who I am, who I know and who I had spoken with, what I wrote, and a link to my blog. Transparency! We left off with an open ended “maybe we can have coffee.”

AHA!!!

I kept thinking about the whole event and it finally came together in my mind. Blue Shirt… exclusionary meeting… I remembered hearing about a private C4H2O meeting where certain people were specifically not invited and not given entry. They must have assumed that I was a member of that group – a Blue Shirt! Oy vey – it is just so much easier to ask than to assume!

Radio, Radio

So time goes quietly on. I caught another post on Facebook alerting everyone that The Political Activist would be appearing on a local radio talk show that day. I managed to tune in towards the end of the broadcast, and was dismayed by what she said about the CSD General Manager. She claimed that he had been “Let Go” from his previous positions, and “there’s a history out there.” I asked her if she new this to be true, to which she replied, “Yes. Factual.” I then asked her for proof. A while later she posted two articles that spoke about a discrimination complaint that had been filed against the GM in a previous position, and that he had been placed on Administrative Leave during an investigation – pretty standard procedure. He then resigned to take another position before the investigation was completed. The article ended by saying that the city, after an extensive investigation, found absolutely no wrongdoing. Ergo – PROOF! Aristotle wept.

Please tell me I didn’t hear that…

The second comment I found to be almost irresponsible came during an exchange with a caller who said that to him fire danger was more of a critical issue – a statement that, in light of the current wildfire situation at our front door was absolutely on target. She agreed that it was in fact a big concern, and then added “and we don’t even know if our hydrants work!” WHAT???

So, in the spirit of not speaking until I had more information, I approached a firefighter who was giving a presentation to the CSD Board and shared the statement that was made, and asked him it was true. He literally bit his lip, collected his thoughts and then gave me a detailed description of how the hydrant system was monitored and maintained. He described the physical testing that is done, how it had been modified given the current drought conditions, and how there are activities around clearing weeds, brush and debris from the hydrants to keep them visible and accessible. He assured me that the hydrants work, although it is always possible that some hydrant somewhere might have an undetected problem – just like any component in any distributed system. In addition to this verbal update, I posed the same question in writing to the Fire Chief, and received a similar response. He wrote “Thank you for expressing your concern. To answer your question… I cannot speak to the readiness of the hydrant and water system that is being referenced by the moderator conducting (sp) the radio show you have mentioned, but that is not the case here in Cambria.”

I spend a lot of time on this because – words matter. We all have enough to be worried about without careless statements adding unnecessary worry to our lives.

Words matter. Truth matters. Words matter.

To be continued!

Well that was quick!

25 Saturday Jun 2016

Posted by Michael Calderwood in Cambria CCSD, Community Involvement, Local politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Cambria, Cambria community services district, CCSD, local board meetings

Summertime, and the meeting was easy…

The June 23rd meeting of the CCSD Board was a fairly quick-moving, less hostile and positive session. With two of the five Directors away on vacation, the discussions and reviews at the Big Kid’s table went 40% quicker. In the audience, attendance was lighter than normal, and those who spoke during public comment kept (mostly) to the three-minute limit.

That’s not to say it was all hugs and kisses, but it did start out that way. After a year of transition the Cambria Fire Department officially swore in a new Fire Chief. William Hollingsworth, a long-serving member of the Department was joined by his family and representatives from other Fire Services. He received a warm, heartfelt ovation from all of us in attendance – a nice moment where the community rose together to congratulate a fellow citizen and wish him well. As the baton was passed, Cal Fire Battalion Chief Eric Shalhoub shared his thoughts on his time as interim leader of the Cambria Fire Department. He spoke with great admiration for the members of the Fire Department, and noted how every member of the service is devoted to the protecting community. He also noted how supportive and involved the CSD Board and Staff had been during the transition period. Chief Shalhoub took time away from his duties fighting the Sherpa fire to be at this meeting. Leadership.

Calling all cars…

The monthly report from the Sheriff’s department was a combination of shifts and giggles, as the Commander offered some color commentary on several criminal activities that occurred in and around Cambria. It felt at times like a conversation around the table at Creekside (where great pancakes are born) rather than an official report – and that isn’t a criticism. The Commander gave an update on what the Sheriff’s office was doing to address the recent increase of crimes in the area; he provided specifics on additional budgeted staffing, alternate policing methods including bike patrols through town, and an increased ability to reduce response times in the overnight hours. Overall a good, solid complete update, except for one small detail – nobody checked to see if one particular gadfly was in the room during the report. So of course said gadfly rose during public comment demanding answers about what was being done to address the increase in crime. A perfectly timed pause, looks of disbelief shared among some attendees, and then in a nice display of civility the Board President invited the Commander back to the podium to give his presentation again. You know, so nobody would feel like they were not informed.

Less is more… (aggravating)

The meeting continued on, and a representative from Balance Communications (a consultancy engaged to help the Board and Staff navigate the political landscape of Sacramento) provided an update on activities and progress since the last meeting. The contract with the consultancy is not viewed positively by a part of the community, and these updates are often met with negative comments from the public. One of the main criticisms has been the lack of detailed results in place of general bullet points. In the case of this particular presentation I would have to agree – not a lot there and the presenter did not seem well-versed in the detail.

It’s complicated…

For those not familiar with Cambria’s complex and often confusing issues around water, property ownership, and growth – well I’m probably not the best guy to explain it.

If I could simply describe the situation it would be:

Water – always a precious resource, made more so by the brutal multi-year drought that is changing the landscape of California. Unless you don’t believe that – then it’s just a puzzle piece being used by big developers to gain control of the area. (Based on the recent events in the larger county there may be some bits of truth in that viewpoint.)
Growth – maintaining Cambria as it is versus managed, limited growth versus not so managed and not so limited growth versus Cambria as Carmel South. This issue contains several subcategories including environmental, cultural, economic and isolationist positions. It’s here where you get to really see the rich diversity in this small community.
Trust – it seems that nobody trusts anyone outside their defined “group”, and nobody trusts the CCSD!

Nothing is simple or straightforward. Every issue or challenge has to be viewed in a larger context. Everyone weighs in, from the alphabet of committees, governing authorities, permitting agencies, policies, commissions, ad hoc committees, judicial reviews, citizen’s advocacy groups, local and regional media outlets, environmentalists, scientists, engineers, politicians, developers, – sorry, my keyboard just overheated. Let’s just say it is a complicated stew topped with a healthy dose of passion sauce. This is the landscape the CCSD Board and Staff has to navigate. Partially lush and lovely, partially barren and forbidding, pockets of unstable ground surrounded by hostiles waiting for an opportunity to pounce. Lots of toxicity waiting to be unleashed. Everyone is an expert or an idiot. An enemy or an ally. On one side of the fence or the other – and by the way that fence better have a valid permit, mister!

OK, we got this...

To manage these intertwined issues the Board has to tread carefully and make decisions that are in the best interests of the community. In the case of allowing new water and sewer hookups it gets more tricky. There are policies in place that under “normal” conditions would allow a number of new connections per year. Under current drought conditions – and a declared Stage 3 Emergency, the rules become much more restrictive. Add to that the governance around the use of the recently built, newly-rebranded “Sustainable Water Facility” which was originally presented as an Emergency Water Supply and is still going through the lengthy and very necessary Environmental Impact Review, replete with legal challenges and conflict over who the governing authority is in the process and decision-making becomes an exercise in going down The Rabbit Hole (which must remain undisturbed and preserved for generations of Board Members to fall down in the future.) Now, refer to the issues above, sprinkle in advocates for each, and try to solve the puzzle. Yelling “Off with their heads” is optional. Not very productive, perhaps but kind of fun.

One Two Three kick…

An agenda item that would highlight the complexity of this situation was wisely deferred until the August meeting, when there might be more clarity around the status of the Declared Stage 3 Drought Emergency, which would then inform the discussion around new hookups. In public comment there was some grumbling about the decision, which to my thinking provides an opportunity for the Directors to get ahead of the game and put together a simple 1 or 2 page document that would outline the issue, the potential resolutions, the impacts of those resolutions, and the factors to be used to make a determination. This could go a long way towards building a better dialog.

The community would have the same set of facts that the Board is using to deliberate and decide.
People will be able to do their own research based on the same set of facts the Board is using.
People will be able to provide input based on a common understanding of the facts.
Misinformation can be identified and rectified.
The community will be better informed and can provide input prior to the meeting.
The Board will have a better sense of how members of the community view the issue.

I think this would fall under the definition of transparency.

Finally…

After much spirited community discussion a revised Employment Agreement for the General Manager was presented for review and action. The contract was stripped of many of the original items, reducing it to a simple agreement that provided the General Manager with a 6% increase. The revision addressed the major points that had caused such agita for some in the community. Along with that it also stripped out a lot of the mutual benefits the original proposal contained, but none the less the contract was agreed to by the Board and the GM.

Public comment on this issue was interesting. Three citizens rose and spoke in support of the GM, citing their experiences working with him across a range of issues and highlighting the progress that has been made under his administration. The three spoke in rational, measured and respectful tones. Opponents of the General Manager approached it differently, with comments referencing a mess of an article from an online source to excerpts from emails obtained through Freedom of Information requests that according to the speaker proved that the current GM was unfit to serve. Well, ok then…

When we walked out of the Vet’s Hall after the meeting the sun was still shining, birds were still chirping, traffic was still humming up and down Main Street, and we all had the opportunity to go on with our lives, free and safe for another two months. As they say on the television – “until next time!”

Thoughts From The Back Of The Room

~ Words Matter

Author Archives: Michael Calderwood

The Final Frontier

I just went to pick up tomatoes!

I was there – in spirit!

Candidates, I’d like to know…

Follow up …

What I’ve Been Up To – Part II

Somebody asked…an interlude

Well that was quick!

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: