As the kids say, “I just can’t….”

25 Wednesday Jan 2017

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Amanda Rice, Amanda Rice Cambria, Cambria, Cambria community services district, CCSD, Greg Sanders, Greg Sanders Cambria, Harry Farmer, Jerry Gruber Cambria, Jim Bahringer Cambria, local board meetings, Mike Thompson Cambria

Where do I begin…

I’ve taken a little more time than usual to capture my thoughts from the January CCSD meeting. I was so – I don’t know – confused, disheartened, bemused, all of the above when I left that I really had a hard time sorting through it all. It was such a strange and unsettling meeting that I actually went to the video tape and watched the whole thing again, wanting to be sure my initial reaction wasn’t due to the weather. It wasn’t; this meeting was a mess. A quick look at the agenda didn’t reveal anything controversial, and my sense was that it should be a pretty crisp meeting. Boy, was I wrong.

It doesn’t matter how fair and balanced I try to be with this one. I’m bummed that our most critical local government function went all Humpty Dumpty.

If you could see her through my eyes…” Cabaret

Let’s go to the video tape…

It might be a good idea for every Director, Staff member and public speaker to watch the entire 4 hours and thirty-nine minutes of this session so they can see what we the people see from the audience. It could offer some insights as to where behavioral changes might result in a better, more productive and positive collaborative enterprise.

HERE’S A LINK TO THE REPLAY

So why the long face?

After thinking about it for a few days I’ve come to the belief that the behaviors exhibited in the meetings are more the result of issues that take place outside the Vet’s Hall, and build to a point that explode during a public meeting. Let’s start with Public Comment. It seems like it has become a game of dueling speakers. One gets up to speak negatively about the Board, the staff, and actions taken or not taken. The next speaker gets up to defend the board, the staff and actions taken or not taken. It’s like a slow game of tennis, but you get to sit down after each stroke.

It took me a while to figure out what one speaker was talking about. Survey equipment or surveillance equipment? A man with a dog? Two men in hazmat vests? Routine surveillance? What is this, an episode of the X Files? Photographic evidence showed surveyor’s levels, but no surveillance equipment. Or hazmat vests. Or a pickup truck. Or the man on the grassy knoll. Weird, but definitely the CSD’s fault. I’m still not sure what that was all about, or why it was an issue for the Board.

The interaction between the General Manager and Citizen Dickason was embarrassing. It went from Jerry Gruber to Jerry Springer, with both sides hitting the “I DON’T TRUST YOU!!!!! WELL I DON”T TRUST YOU EITHER!!!!! duet like veteran community theater actors.

New Direction?

With the elevation of Director Rice, I expected that there would be some differences in how the meetings would be run. Community members have expressed unhappiness over the length of the meetings. President Rice on several occasions stated that she would like to see them take less time. In her first full meeting with the gavel, she brought this baby in at a crisp four hours and thirty-nine minutes plus a few seconds. There was much shifting from side to side in the folding chairs. A good chunk of time was spent on President Rice going through her proposed goals and objectives for the coming year. Perhaps a review of the meeting recording could help her identify where clear thought and word economy might move things forward at a more reasonable pace.

There seemed to be a marked change on how dialog around public comment would be handled. The combination of Brown Act requirements and CCSD Bylaws set a general framework for allowable interaction. Directors have the option of giving short responses to speaker questions, and to ask short questions of the speaker for clarity or amplification. In past meetings these exchanges were few, and generally brief. In this session, debates seemed to break out all over the place, and, in several instances, Directors had terse exchanges with speakers, the audience and each other.

New President

On multiple occasions the President made what I consider to be inappropriate or poorly thought out comments to the General Manager. Putting aside the battle between GM Gruber and Citizen Dickason, I was stunned by the way President Rice handled two issues.

I am of the mind that an employee, no matter how high they are in the organization, should not be dressed down, have their competence questioned or otherwise undermined in a public meeting by a Board Director or Officer.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings.” From The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare

Additionally, it is, in my view, inappropriate for a Director, let alone the Board President, to publicly accuse or imply that a business or organization doing work with the CCSD is behaving unethically. The comments by President Rice and Director Farmer in relation to the CDM Smith task orders were painful to hear, and based on my experience, reflected a real lack of understanding of how projects like the Sustainable Water Facility are managed. Consulting firms do not exist to do favors – heck, they would go out of business pretty quickly if they gave away their services. These services have real value, and require real work by real people with deep expertise to achieve complex objectives. The whole process of designing and executing a complex technical project demands clear requirements and deliverables; it also requires a robust change -management methodology, which covers expanded requirements, changes to project scope, additional services required (time, materials, expertise, support…). The methodology usually outlines what steps are to be taken to define the scope of any change, why the change is needed, who is responsible for the change, and what costs, if any, are projected to be required for the change. To have public officials imply that the consulting firm is acting in bad faith – “they know we have this money…” is not cool. Telling the General Manager that you think he did a poor job in negotiating the changes is at a minimum in poor taste and shows a real lack of leadership. Comparing the execution of the complex project to building a house, and telling the consultant tough – the rest of the work will be on their dime – may seem like a popular posture but is actually pretty ignorant.

What good is sitting alone in your room… Cabaret

Some suggestions

General Manager Gruber expressed the desire to file requests for information from all of the agencies he believes are being hectored by members of the community. He has stated a belief that the impact to the staffs of these agencies, including the CSD, is significant in cost and operational effectiveness. He also stated that these constant filings (and other contacts) are seriously undermining the reputation and credibility of the District. He also believes some of these efforts are deliberate tactics by some groups to cause the SWF project to fail.

OK, if these assertions are true, I would support an effort to prove them. File the requests, collect the data, put together a process to translate these situations into real costs – with some reasonable calculations that would give the Board and the community a fair sense of the size and impact of these issues. If it turns out that they do, in fact, have a measurable impact on the District, it should be reported on, just like a failed piece of equipment, an infrastructure emergency, a vehicle replacement or any other expense or activity that impacts the District’s ability to do business.

And, if this all proves out, what action could or should be taken to address the specific identified problems? Will the individuals or groups found to drive these problems change their views and alter their behaviors? Based on initial reactions over the last few months that these charges have been surfacing, I doubt it. Will the information galvanize the community to apply their voices in an effort to persuade? Maybe, but to what effect? Will the Board find a way to better dialog and support their responsibilities, or will they as individuals continue to root with their core constituents? Based on this last meeting I have my doubts…

Come into the light

It is one thing for members of the community to make accusations of corruption, malfeasance, collusion, secret meetings and other nefarious goings on by Board members. It is quite another to hear sitting Board members make similar veiled accusations against their colleagues, the firms that the CSD does business with, and other businesses and concerns in town.

If someone has an accusation to make – make it. Publicly. With facts. Data. Names. Specific actions or events. Stop with the passive-aggressive, air-quote “many people are saying” type of nonsense. Put it out there and be ready to prove it. Save the suspicions, conspiracy theories and “alternative facts” for a different forum. Decide if you want to be a grown up who takes the facts as they come or a partisan who takes the facts that they favor.

Make the meeting rules clear and stick to them.

Demand respectful behavior from everyone.

Correct errors and misinformation in a crisp, factual way. When a speaker repeats false information – like how many hours CSD employees work – provide the data that clearly ends the debate.

Figure out a way to get the tough conversations done before or after a public meeting. Solve the conflicts before they hit the meeting floor.

It’s like raaa-aiiiiin on your meeting day…”

badly heard Alanis Morrisette lyric

Have a meter

One of the interesting things about attending the meeting twice was the opportunity to see it from different perspectives. I generally sit in the last row so I can see, hear and observe the whole room. Watching the replay gave me different views of the proceedings, and offered a few chuckles.

Watching the speakers queue up for their shot at the podium reminded me of shoppers looking for the fastest line at Costco.

Listening to a citizen address the Board and mention how a Director spent some time looking at his phone at the last meeting. Watching the same citizen sitting in the audience reading the newspaper as other matters were discussed.

Having a citizen proclaim that the General Manager should be fired for his exchange with a speaker, and then stating that his assertions of harrassment were based on hearsay. The citizen then continued with ” I heard it wasn’t even her… I heard it was someone else.” uh, using hearsay to attack hearsay? Have a meter!

hearsay – noun

information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

We The People

18 Sunday Dec 2016

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Amanda Rice, Cambria, CCSD, Greg Sanders, Harry Farmer, Jerry Gruber Cambria, Jim Bahringer Cambria, Mike Thompson Cambria

Community

The period between Thanksgiving and New Year is one of increasing activity for everyone. In Cambria, that includes such traditional events as Hospitality Night, Friends of The Fiscalini Ranch “Songs For The Season” Fundraiser, the opening of the Cambria Christmas Market (which I believe can be seen from space) and Cambria Center For The Arts Theater’s delightful production of “It’s A Wonderful Life”, which is open to all free of charge. The weather is cooling, the shops are looking festive and the line at the Post Office has begun to double back on itself as holiday greetings arrive and depart and packages are lugged in and hauled out. The rotating faces of the homeless stationed outside remind me that we still have a way to go to make the season a little brighter for everyone.

Cambrians are many things, but at the top of that list sit the twin sisters of Kindness and Generosity. We may grumble a bit as we dig a little deeper to pay our water bill, but that grumbling doesn’t even think about making an appearance when we reach again for that ten or twenty dollars to hand to the volunteers lining the driveway circling the Vet’s Hall every time a community member is faced with a difficult and often tragic situation. The sudden unexpected loss of a beloved community member draws a congregation to mourn together, remember together and celebrate a life well lived, together. People truly care about each other around here; as good as it is, it ain’t the spaghetti that draws a crowd.

The community demonstrates caring in other ways, most visibly in the political process. There are thousands of people in the community, and a really impressive number participated in the recent election, with a registered voter participation rate in the neighborhood of 87%. The run-up to election day was crowded with candidate forums, small gatherings at citizen’s homes, discussions at the Farmer’s Market and everywhere people would meet. Everyone had an opinion, a favored candidate, and carried a burning platform. Lines were drawn, sides taken, divisions hardened. But really, how deep did the divide go? My guess is that there are a handful of diehards on every side, a larger number adjacent, and an even larger number right in the neutral zone; not uncaring, not uninvolved, not ambivalent. Just people who kept their humanity standing in front of their partisanship. It was pretty noisy, and kind of ugly at times, but we all had our chance to speak with our votes.

No Electoral College Needed

With the election behind us, I looked ahead to the December Board meeting, where the newly elected and re-elected Directors would take their seats at the podium.

One major item needed to be addressed at the top of the session – electing the President and Vice President who would lead the Board in the upcoming year. This was an event eagerly anticipated by much of the community, and there was a lot of energy around the topic in the weeks between the election and the session. As with many things, there was a lack of clarity as to how the process actually works. Many believed that there was a rotational policy, where the officers would rotate through their terms. A subset of this belief was that the sitting VP (assuming re-election or in this case, continuation of his elected term) would become president, and a new Vice President was to be elected. Others believed that everybody got a turn with the gavel. Many felt that it was only fair that a sitting Director who had served a full term, but who had not been given a turn in either position was “due”. This viewpoint had some additional merit since this Director was the top vote-getter in this election, as well as in her previous run.

Where’s the Rulebook?

I remembered a bit of a conversation I had with one of the Directors earlier in the year, and I believed I had a good understanding of the “rules” surrounding this process. I wanted to be sure I had it right, so I sent an email to the Directors and asked for clarification of the rules, and for any “color” they might want to add.

My Email: “I’m doing a bit of research for my next piece and was hoping you all could give me your quick view on the nomination and election of Board execs – President and Vice President. There seems to be some confusion in the community about how that process works. My understanding from what I’ve read and heard is that there is no official rule/policy/bylaw that mandates a change in officers. There is a section on the CSD Website that says officers are chosen every year, but nothing that says “new” officers must be chosen. I’m trying to clearly separate the issues -what is “REQUIRED” versus what is “Past Practice” versus what is “Fair.” There is a perception in some parts of the community that everybody should get a turn with the gavel; some believe that it is a requirement, others believe that is a customary practice, others believe it is a position that is earned. So my simple (!) question – what is the current governing rule/regulation/bylaw that determines how these positions are filled? If you care to add any “color” to the response that would be helpful.”

Within two days I received independent responses from Directors Sanders, Thompson and Rice. They agreed on the facts, and also gave some interesting background. They all agreed I could share their feedback.

Greg Sanders: “Michael – the CCSD Board of Directors By-Laws, duly adopted by the Board, are very clear on the subject. Section 1.4 of the By-Laws states as follows:

“The President and Vice President of the Board shall be elected annually at the first regular meeting in December and the term of office shall commence immediately upon election and continue until replaced.”

That is the only provision of the By-Laws pertaining to the election of the President and Vice-President of the Board. There is nothing in the By-Laws regarding rotation, etc. The Board is free to use any criteria it chooses to select a Board President and Vice-President. The Board could, for example, decide immediately following an election that a candidate receiving the most votes should be selected as the President. Or, the Board could choose to ignore the election and select a President and Vice-President on the basis of some other criteria, or no criteria at all.

He also added some historical perspective: In my service on the Board… there has been no particular pattern followed. I served back-to-back terms as President of the Board in 2009 and 2010. The Board wanted continuity at a time when some very significant issues were under consideration. When I served from 2002-2010, Don Villeneuve, a fellow Board member, did not serve at any time as President. As I recall, he did not serve as Vice President, either. He resigned in 2008 (or thereabouts).

In my experience, selection of a Board President and Vice-President has been based on exigencies. Ilan Funke-Bilu served as either Board President or Vice –President when the District was involved in litigation with Chevron Corp. over MTBE contamination of the Santa Rosa Creek aquifer. He conducted most of the negotiations with Chevron. Having a leadership position enhanced his position vis-à-vis Chevron.”

Mike Thompson: “Good afternoon Michael—-To avoid any possible Brown Act violation, I won’t cc any of the other individuals you queried. You are correct in assuming that there is no official rule/policy/bylaw regarding Board elections. The only requirement is the ability to count to three…in other words, it takes two members besides yourself to gain election. Last year Gail indicated a desire to continue in the chair to see through the process of applying for the permanent permit for the SWF. I and two others felt that was in the best interest of the District. In the recent past, Greg Sanders was President for two consecutive terms, so there is precedence.”

Amanda Rice: “The way boards choose their officers has always struck me as kind of an awkward situation, primarily due to Brown act restrictions about talking to other directors about certain business items. I can’t, for instance, talk to directors to try and find out if there’s a consensus about who should be president or vice president. There is no rule or law that requires the officers to ever change; as long as somebody is in office they can serve as president or vice president.

Besides there being nothing specific about “how” officers are rotated, there is nothing that bestows any additional powers or authorities to any individual board member, whether they are president, vice president or non-officer directors. The bylaws give the president the job of chairing… the meetings and to the vp in the president’s absence.

Amanda then added some interesting color: “Last year the bylaws were amended to give the president some additional authority:

Designates or acts as a spokesperson for the board and a point person for gov’t relations.
Makes appointments to all committees subject to board approval.
May add an item to the agenda without the same required board majority of other directors. Can also approve the request of another director to add an item to the agenda, even without board majority.

The bylaws were also changed so that the general manager developed the agenda in cooperation with the president and vice president. Previously, the bylaws stated that the executive committee worked with the general manager to put together the agenda.

The bottom line is this – with the approval of the majority of the board, our bylaws give the president additional control of the direction of the board and therefore, of the district. I disagreed with the changes then. I disagree with them now. But they are the bylaws that I abide by as a director.”

So, one official bylaw. No official “Rule.” All for an office that has “no special power” except when it does. Got it? Good!

It was a blustery day in the hundred acre wood.
Fortunately, Pooh's thoughtful spot was in a sheltered 
place. Now he sat down and tried hard to think of 
something.
Winnie the Pooh: Think... think... think...
Gopher: Say, what's wrong, sonny? Got yourself a 
headache?
Winnie the Pooh: No, I was just thinking.
Gopher: That so? What about?
Winnie the Pooh: I... Oh, bother! You made me forget.

The Big Moment

I was a few minutes late due to the big ass rainstorm that picked the right day to show up. Despite the weather, the Vet’s Hall was packed with people eager to have their voices heard. There was a lot of great energy in the joint – not all positive of course; I got the sense that many of the attendees were staunch supporters of Amanda Rice, and they were not convinced the Board would honor their wish and select her as the new president. And so we begin.

Vice President Thompson did an “LBJ’, indicating he would not accept if nominated and would not serve if elected. Newly elected Director Harry Farmer, in his best “slow-jamming the news” voice, nominated Amanda Rice to fill the office of President. Wild applause from the audience! Discussion followed. Director Jim Bahringer spoke. He said that the politically easy thing for him to do would be to support Amanda, but in his view Director Greg Sanders would be a better choice to lead the Board, given the circumstances and work to be done over the next year. He felt Amanda should be Vice President this year, and President in 2018. This did not go over very well with the attendees. Public comment was fiery, with pointed and passionate comments along with a reading of the will – of the people who signed a petition calling for Amanda’s ascension, complete with the petitioner’s written comments. The nomination was defeated 3-2. Director Bahringer then nominated Greg Sanders and Amanda Rice for President and Vice President. More discussion, with Director Rice giving her reasoning as to why she would be the right choice for President. More cries from the people, lots of angry faces, fully expecting their hopes for change to be crushed.

A vote was called on the Sanders/Rice ticket. Monique straightened her Christmas sweater and called the roll:

Director Bahringer – NO.

Director Sanders – NO.

Vice President Thompson – NO.

Director Rice – NO.

Director Farmer – NOOOOO.

What? WOW!!!!! He voted against his own nomination!?!? This was really fascinating – a ripped-from-the-pages of a political thriller screenplay. I scanned the room for Aaron Sorkin. He wasn’t there, so I scanned the room for Aaron Wharton, who also wasn’t there. No matter – the drama continued.

Director Bahringer then immediately nominated Director Rice for President. Monique, now at the edge of her seat, again called the roll. The vote – 5-0. Amanda was President. She immediately nominated Greg Sanders for Vice President. Again Monique cheerfully called the roll – again 5-0. The CCSD Board of Directors was ready to go.

Fast Forward

I know Kathe Tanner will report on the important discussions that followed, but I want to comment on the last Agenda item. A compensation increase for selected members of the CSD staff was put before the Board for a vote. The increase would be given in two steps in 2017. A 5.5% increase in January, a second 5.5% in June. At first blush an 11% increase is attention-grabbing and cause for serious discussion. The General Manager went through the reasoning behind the proposal, with one of the key points being very compelling to me. Over the last several years staffing levels have been reduced, with several positions eliminated and the attendant duties added to the responsibilities of the employees under discussion. So these positions carry more responsibility, and in my mind additional compensation should be given.

I understand arguing against the increases on financial grounds. I was distressed to hear that some members of the board and the public had views that were less than sensitive, culminating in a public comment that the employees “should be grateful they have a job.”

I continue to be confounded by the people who, in earlier public comment railed against the staff for not delivering information they have demanded (demands that add additional workload and are a time drain on an already overburdened team) are the same people who, in the same meeting, cried out loudly for “fairness” and “doing the right thing” in the election of the Board President would speak so forcefully against showing “fairness” and “doing the right thing” for the employees who give more than what is reasonable in service to the community.

The board did the right thing and approved the compensation.

Happy Holidays.

Voices, Votes and Values

18 Friday Nov 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Amanda Rice Cambria, Cambria, CCSD, DeWayne Lee, Gail Robinette Cambria, Greg Sanders Cambria, Harry Farmer, Jerry Gruber Cambria, Jim Bahringer Cambria, Mike Thompson Cambria

Random thought of the day

I don’t know about you guys, but I can’t think of anything more exciting than magnificent pictures of water treatment infrastructure – especially motors and pumps. Can I get an AMEN!!!??? It’s clear the General Manager embraces the old adage “a picture is worth a thousand words” but I’m not sure we need the pictures and the thousand words! No wonder the meetings run so long!

Signs

Many words have passed among the community during the run-up to the November 8^th election. In addition to the fate of the free world being decided, there was also a Presidential selection that needed to be made. Our fine candidates for the CCSD Board did their best to get their messages out to the voters, making themselves available for discussion. The Farmer’s market was a popular spot to get face time with all of them. It was kind of interesting to see them standing a few feet away from each other – close enough to ask each other a question or have a quick discussion as a group, with constituents right there to participate in an informal, open air way. That could have been an opportunity to build a dialog that would continue beyond Election Day, regardless of the outcome. Sigh; a boy can dream…

I did a quick spin through the market looking for the purveyor of the magic beans that yielded the millions of colorful campaign signs that sprang up everywhere around the town. That must have been some feat of seed engineering to have them all grow with different colors and names.

October Scarcecrows

Speaking of hybrids, the October CCSD Board meeting was held at 4:00 pm. Not the traditional 12:30 pm nor the requested 6:00 pm, but a compromise time that seemed to make neither a major or minor difference in attendance. By my count, there were 16 attendees, excluding board, staff and speakers. Of the 16, 4 were non-incumbent candidates. One of those guys was there to speak on a different subject. So 25% of the audience had to be there. We were missing some of the regulars, but were joined for a while by an interesting fellow who shared some of his thoughts during public comment. Although his political views and personal belief systems were certainly different, he was given a free and equal opportunity to speak. He may have been humming “Don’t Stand So Close To Me” because he was met by 3 members of the police.

The meeting was fairly low-key, with a very good presentation on the new town park that is being designed and implemented in what seems to be sensible and well thought out phases. Good job!

The Town Engineer then shared some very interesting information on an issue that had risen (floated?) to the top. Sharp-eyed and focused community members had noticed significant differences in the amount of water pumped versus the amount of water that was accounted for – either through meter counts, known allotments for special contracts, and/or testing. The initial numbers that raised the alarm were significant, and demanded investigation and explanation. The Engineer came prepared with updated data and explanations for the numbers. Coincidentally, he was in the process of going through training on the required methods of auditing and reporting on water usage. He was freshly armed with tools and processes that would help get a handle on the issue. His initial findings told us that the numbers used in the preliminary report were unaudited and inaccurate. After putting things in the right framework, the data revealed a much more manageable loss. It is not where it needs to be, but the corrected numbers and better processes will be used to set a strategy of continuous improvement. My takeaway is that it will be several months until the process is refined to a point where everyone can at least agree on the data and the technical teams can implement plans to attack water loss on multiple fronts.

By the end of the meeting we were down to 2 attendees – me and Dewayne Lee. It took a few minutes to get the circulation back into our legs, but dammit, we survived!

Election day, and the winners are…

Voter turnout was beyond impressive with over 79.5% of registered voters casting ballots. That, my friends is an engaged electorate, and underscores the level of passion in our community.

With such a large turnout in Cambria as well as the rest of San Luis Obispo County, ballot counting has taken longer than anyone expected. As of today two of the incumbents – Amanda Rice and Greg Sanders – have comfortable margins and, barring a major change, should be returned to the board. The third seat is unsettled, with incumbent Board President Gail Robinette enjoying a slender 14 vote lead over surprise challenger Harry Farmer. That order quickly changed as the next round of ballot counting put Harry in the lead. As of last count his lead stands at 23 votes. With around 386 ballots left to be counted, this one might be finalized by the weekend. I can’t imagine how stressful this is for the candidates and their supporters. Regardless of who wins the final seat, I hope all the passionate supporters maintain their sense of propriety. I don’t want to see any rowdy protests in the West Village; no angry chants of “Not My Board President.”

November already

The business of governance continued with the November CCSD Board meeting. This session was held at the traditional time of 12:30 pm, and citizen attendance was really light. I guess everyone was spent from all that voting. If I didn’t include myself, I could count the attendees on one hand. Literally. The room was crowded with members of the Water and Wastewater teams, who were recognized for their contributions to the community. It was nice to put faces to names, and to see them receive recognition from the community. (They all wore blue shirts – but nobody told them they had to leave!)

There was another speaker (also wearing a blue shirt) who gave an update on upcoming events that support the SLO County homeless population. The General Manager’s report (including pumps and motors pix) was followed by an interesting discussion around a request to extend a Franchise Agreement with Mission Country Disposal for Solid Waste Disposal Management. The request was for an extension of 20 years (and possibly more) and is linked to the build and management of a state of the art plant that would process materials not suitable for landfills. I will leave the real explanation to the experts – including our local reporter Kathe Tanner, who pays way more attention to the details than I do.

Finally, a discussion around a compensation increase for the Finance Manager sparked good discussion among the board. They are challenged with balancing the realities of hiring and retaining qualified employees with sensible financial oversight. After a healthy discussion, the motion to approve the compensation was passed by a 4-1 vote, with Director Rice the dissenting vote. Her objection was based on fiscal concerns; she was very clear about her appreciation for the employee and his value to the community.

During the public comment periods, a returning regular exercised her right to freely complain about actions and inactions taken and not taken by the board, and treated each member with equal disrespect, eschewing the more respectful title of Director, or even Mr. or Ms. And used their first names as she went over her allotted time. I guess when you’re a real activist the rules of time don’t apply, and the simple courtesies are only to be expected from the board members who are attacked. I am a pretty mellow guy, and I can’t remember the last time I came close to losing my temper in public. I came really close today, but decided that I would let magnanimity carry the day.

Serenity now!!!

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.

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…

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!

Thoughts From The Back Of The Room

~ Words Matter

Category Archives: Local politics

As the kids say, “I just can’t….”

We The People

Voices, Votes and Values

The Final Frontier

I just went to pick up tomatoes!

I was there – in spirit!

Candidates, I’d like to know…

What I’ve Been Up To – Part II

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: