Tag Archives: Cambria community services district

Tough Slog

28 Tuesday Feb 2017

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Water, Water Everywhere

It certainly has been a challenging few weeks for the Cambria Community Services District employees.  They’ve been inundated from every possible direction, with never-ending rain straining every resource. From the well fields to the brine pond, water, water everywhere.  The town, the surrounding hills, the beaches and the roads were assaulted by blessed and cursed rain.  It was all hands on a flooded deck.   Danger. A slip, a missed step, a falling tree, or a power line.  Look left, get pummelled from the right.  Miss something over there while trying to fix something over here, and bad things can happen. 

At the same time, the CSD staff leadership was under a different deluge – one of warnings and eventually notices of violation from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.  Some of these issues overlapped, with the rains exacerbating the strain and driving serious and consequential real-time decision-making, each choice the best that could be made, knowing that the downside of other things put aside could come back to haunt.  There is real danger in these times.

Pick up a shovel or spreadsheet?  Answer a public request or comply with an agency requirement?  Ensure safety or ensure administrative compliance?  Ask for help or ask forgiveness?  Whatever call is made, another one will be made by someone else. Such is a life in public service.  Plenty of support when someone gets hurt, and plenty of told-you so’s when someone comes up short.

Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and the bane of all good society. Thomas Paine

Extra, Extra!!!

In the weeks since the last Board meeting, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board sent Notices of Violation to the CCSD.  Each notice contained specific complaints, and each listed infraction carried the potential for fines; the number of instances times the dollar amounts per violation quickly added up to a theoretical fine closing in on $600,000.00 all in.  Startling, disturbing and definitely eye-catching.  Which is why the headlines led with it in one form or another.  Not Fake News, but certainly tone-setting.

A careful reading of the credible news articles revealed a more detailed and nuanced view of the situation. The vast majority of the violations were administrative – late or incomplete reports being the main bloc of issues.  The reporting requirements placed on the CSD are not trivial; some would argue they are close to punitive.  The reports seem to be required so the Water Board and other oversight agencies can monitor and manage any potential issues that could compromise the health and safety of both citizens and the environment.  Important stuff, and each agency seems to take these data points very seriously.  Timeliness of the reports likely impact the reporting the respective agencies need to do, and on it goes.

A deeper dive into the reporting and updates from the involved parties reveal that the draconian tone of the notices (and the subsequent headlines) were meant to convey a message – “Hey, guys – we are very serious here.  Get it together fast!!!”  Further reading offered a more conciliatory and even encouraging posture from agency representatives.  While not absolution, it revealed a more pragmatic and less dramatic approach to solving the problems that drove the notices.

The General Manager acknowledged the violations, and accepted that he and his staff had to do much better to win the trust of the agencies and the public.  Significant progress has been made against the backlog of late reporting.  Root causes were identified, and process changes and personnel realignments were made to better manage the requirements going forward.

Still – those headlines!  The most extreme of the stories flew around Social Media like the winning Lottery numbers.  To some, I guess, there were.

Accountability

I never expect to see a perfect work from an imperfect man. – Alexander Hamilton

Throughout the onslaught, some very serious questions were raised around accountability.  There is no doubt that the General Manager is ultimately responsible for ensuring the CSD’s obligations are met. He’s The Guy.  Responsibilities for individual deliverables fall across different parts of the organization, and many are shared among different, interlocking functions, but when things go boom, people are looking for that “one throat to choke.”  He is the one who takes the beating, no matter how fair or unfair.  I think he accepts that responsibility, and so far he has stood up and taken the heat.  He also stood tall and apologized for his comments at an earlier meeting, directing his words to the individual he scuffled with and the agency he inaccurately represented. Most importantly, he has taken action to correct what needed correcting.  Still, there are members of the community who are demanding his head.  Some have been taking small snips, others flashing their blades wildly. Still others lay out stones in the road hoping he will stumble over one and knock his own head off.  Or lose his cool, speak out of turn, and force the hand of say, oversight agencies.

Others take a more measured view, shut out the noise, and deal with the facts.  Not a single dollar in fines has been levied based on the Notices Of Violation.  That could change, and maybe it could result in a significant fine.  Maybe there will be a nominal fine or penalty.  Maybe the oversight will be ramped up and the reporting requirements tightened.  Or maybe, with considered review, opportunities to reshape some of the requirements will make it easier to comply while maintaining the correct levels of safety and situational awareness.  I struggle to think of a reason an agency would severely punish a community for these types of infractions.  I wonder why some community members seem almost gleeful at the prospect.  Weird, right?

Abandonment

I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little dog too!  – Margaret Hamilton

You know what else is weird?  The incredible swiftness with which some loyal friends and supporters of the Board President tossed her under the Prius and sped away because she did not do their bidding.  She (GASP!!!!) voted the way she thought was best.  Well, hot damn!! I fear some people don’t quite know how representative government is supposed to work.  It is interesting  to see some of these folks go on about free and equal, but when they don’t get the specific actions they want they call for the overthrow of their own votes. To quote some bozo in Washington. “SAD!”

Unaccepted Answers

With every meeting and every conversation, it becomes clearer that no matter what the explanation, what the reasoning or what the evidence says, some  folks simply will not believe anything the Board says about the Sustainable Water Facility.  From the conditions that drove the rapid development and build out of the facility, to the funding of the project, the rebranding, and the current status, required changes and ongoing permitting, every position given by the Board is called into question by those who oppose the plant, along with pretty much everything else that is the District’s responsibility.  Every question has been answered, and just about ever answer has been rejected.  Short of allowing folks to place fingers in wounds nothing will change any mind.  This is really too bad.  But if the foundational mindset is that there never was an emergency and the facility was always intended to fuel growth, therefore everyone involved is corrupt and dishonest, this will never change.  It becomes a game of attrition.

I often question my own view of the facts, so I reach out to different members of the resistance to ask for a better understanding of their positions.  Results have been mixed, with some good, open and civil conversations, and some sharp, “stick to the issues and “What do you not see?” retorts, as if coming to different conclusions somehow makes me a dullard.

Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. – Alexander Hamilton

How Do We Listen?

There were a couple of real head-scratching exchanges during the last meeting.  They illustrate our collective differences in how we listen, what we hear through our own filters and biases, and how we respond to what was said.  A few quick examples:

  • The GM went through, in some detail, the actions he and the staff have taken in response to the Notices of Violation.  He highlighted a few of the drivers that contributed to late reporting, including samples that are sent to different labs around the country, resulting in uneven and delayed results needed to populate the required reports.  He outlined the steps taken to remove this particular stumbling block; later, in public comment a citizen referred back to the GM’s comments as an example of finger-pointing and shifting blame.  Now, my initial reaction was “that’s not what I heard.” Director Bahringer’s response confirmed my take on what was said.
  • Another citizen (and prior candidate for a Board seat) spoke about the loan agreement that funded a large part of the facility, saying we have “hocked everything we own…”and painted a dire picture of having everything in town seized if we default.  I wonder if he read a different loan agreement, because I didn’t see anything like that in the one I read.
  • A third example was an exchange between Directors Farmer and Sanders regarding the work needed to be done to complete the EIR.  Director Sanders shared his experienced opinion that documents like the EIR often go through a complicated response process, and at times the information that agencies have requested in their review comments are already in the document, and could be found by a more careful review of the data provided.  Director Farmer replayed that back as Director Sanders blaming the Agencies for not doing a good job, rather than the original EIR document being flawed.  Certainly not what I heard Director Sanders say, but that’s how Director Farmer heard it.
  • The last example of what was said versus what was heard – in discussing the excess water in the brine pond, the GM outlined a plan that is under consideration, pending approval and permitting from the appropriate agencies.  That plan includes draining much of the rain and floodwaters out of the pond and into nearby fields, lowering the content of the pond to safe, compliant levels.  The second piece of the puzzle would be the ongoing removal of the brine produced by the SWF.  This would entail pumping the brine into tankers and trucking it south to a facility that would dispose of it safely.  The General Manager did some quick math, and estimated that taking everything currently in the brine pond, pumping and trucking it out could cost around a million dollars, and that clearly was not a feasible solution.  This was relayed back to me in an email as  “The estimate at the meeting was at least $1 million to dispose of what’s there now. “

Perhaps these few examples can highlight why it might be helpful to take a minute or two, think about what we hear, ask clarifying questions, or even replay a recording to validate our thoughts.  However, if we all go into a situation with set jaws and contentious minds, not much will change.  A war of attrition.

Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest – Paul Simon

Once Upon A Time

A friend shared with me an article by Nathan Welton from July 2004, detailing the multiple environmental groups who engaged in the battles over the Hearst development efforts. I was struck by the sheer number of different and overlapping groups, and the fractures and tensions among them as they battled to find a common voice.

This section caught my attention: “Leading up to that event was raucous name-calling littering editorial pages — one recent letter painted North Coast county supervisor Shirley Bianchi “a wholly owned subsidiary of the Hearst Corp.” for her support of the current preservation and development plan.”

“Meanwhile, a former adviser to the Environmental Defense Center has admonished the group for having the temerity to make a public request for documents related to the Hearst deal.”

“And Sierra Club officials are threatening to kick local board member Tim O’Keefe out of the organization for publicly airing his differences over Hearst.”

Turn on a trusted and dedicated public figure – check.

Get mad about public document requests – check.

Exile individuals for airing differences of opinion – check.

The more things change…

Quite Remarkable

15 Wednesday Feb 2017

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Wait a Minute, Mister Postman!

I was very surprised to see a series of official documents regarding issues between the CCSD and Governmental agencies appear on Social Media within hours of them being sent.  Odd, I thought.  How on earth did these posters get these documents so quickly?  They weren’t any of the addressees, nor any of those cc’d.  They weren’t mentioned in the body of any of the official documents.  So why am I so interested in how the document got posted so quickly?  Good question, multi-part response.

Learn Your Lessons Well

First, some color.  Back in my corporate days I would  find myself in litigations and mediations around a host of issues – business, technical, contractual, etc.  In one particular case I was in a mediation session in Chattanooga, Tennessee.  One of the attorneys from the other side was an older guy, right out of Central Casting.  White haired, hounds tooth sport jacket, bow tie, round spectacles, probably smoked a pipe while sipping sweet tea.  Behind the fatherly appearance was a legal lion. One phrase he used, in his soft southern drawl, was “this document is quite remarkable.  Quite remarkable indeed!”  I knew I was in for a battle with a very capable opponent.

That simple phrase comes to mind as I think about the most recent chapter in the ongoing drama “As The Water Churns.”

The Documents

I read them several times so I would have a decent grasp on the issues. Most of the issues seem to be administrative violations, with late and/or incomplete reporting topping the list.  Why is this happening?

  • Staffing issue?
  • Onerous and redundant requirements?
  • Lack of expertise?
  • Lack of understanding of the reporting requirements?
  • Clerical errors?
  • Incompetence?
  • Malice?
  • Prioritization where the reporting was superseded by more critical tasks?

The issues raised around the rapid rise of water levels in the brine pond are clearly a concern, and highlight the risks associated with a failure to properly address the root causes.  As the report correctly pointed out, the a major contributing factor was out of the district’s control, but the remedy belongs to the district and the agencies responsible for the land and culvert that caused the problem.

These issues need to be addressed, and it is imperative they are addressed fully, however long that might take.

The language of the notices seemed to be overly dramatic and heavy-handed, designed to be a very loud shot across the bow.  A subsequent report in The Cambrian seems to support this observation.

Shot heard.

I heard it’s Conspiracy Theory month.  Here’s mine.

Remarkable

It’s quite remarkable that an official series of communications from a regulatory agency to another agency, ‘cc’d to members and staff from additional agencies, wound up in the possession of three citizens not affiliated with any of those agencies, not on any part of the distribution/cc list, and with no indication that they were in any way party to the matters being discussed.  Well, I thought, these documents are public record, and can be shared (after proper review) with members of the public.  Yet here they were, posted to a Social Media Page, mere hours after they were sent.

Even with everything moving at previously unheard of speed, it would be nearly impossible for a citizen to draw up a FOIA request, submit it to any or all of the parties named or copied, have the request go through the appropriate vetting process (especially since there are specific threats of penalties that could reasonably require a response and discussion between/among the parties) before the information is released to a citizen. Even if a miracle FOIA event happened, an individual would likely have to know that such a series of notices were being prepared and sent, who was preparing them, and who would be getting them.

Quite remarkable indeed.

I thought about it some more, recalling the times that staff and board members raised the issue of members of the public using the agencies to harass and obstruct Cambria’s efforts to successfully complete the SWF project.  I thought about the General Manager’s repeated comments, the resignation of a key employee, the stories I’d heard from other Cambrians about the many “off the books” interactions between citizens and staff members of several agencies, including the Water Board and the Coastal Commission.

What’s the likelihood of these “off the books” interactions being discovered by a FOIA request?

I though about the many letters – including the ones submitted through EIR Review, and those published in papers like the Sierra Club newsletter, and compared them to the writings and public comments of several of the prominent opponents.  The similarities are quite remarkable – as if the same writer’s hands guided them all.

Finally, here’s a blatant example of agency documents appearing on Facebook, in near real-time, from persons that have no discernible reason to have those documents in that timeframe, and the theories of collusion, obstruction and double-dealing seemed more credible.

 

Shine The Light 

If there are people in positions of authority – or staffers with inside information – who are inappropriately sharing documents, giving access to confidential or sensitive information, or otherwise assisting people or groups who are deliberately acting with the intent to cause failure, that needs to be investigated and dealt with.  That goes for anyone – CCSD Board members, Coastal Commission staffers, Water Board folks…

This is a reasonable position, and one that should be appreciated by the few folks who consistently lob accusations of corruption, collusion and all manner of wrongdoing at the CCSD Board and staff.

It is about everybody’s favorite word – TRANSPARENCY!

 

 

As the kids say, “I just can’t….”

25 Wednesday Jan 2017

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

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

The Final Frontier

01 Tuesday Nov 2016

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

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!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well that was quick!

25 Saturday Jun 2016

Posted by in Cambria CCSD, Community Involvement, Local politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Summertime, and the meeting was easy…

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

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

Calling all cars…

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

Less is more… (aggravating)

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

It’s complicated…

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

If I could simply describe the situation it would be:

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

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

OK, we got this...

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

One Two Three kick…

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

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

I think this would fall under the definition of transparency.

Finally…

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

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

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

 

 

 

Something in action…

29 Friday Apr 2016

Posted by in Cambria CCSD, Community Involvement

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

THOUGHTS FROM THE BACK OF THE ROOM

I try to attend Cambria Community Services District (CCSD) meetings whenever I can, either in person or through the live webcast provided through SLO-SPAN.org or through replays of previous meetings which are archived and available for viewing when time permits.

I’ve formed some impressions over the last few years – impressions of the Board, impressions of the issues, impressions of the CSD staff, and impressions of the community members who attend and participate on a regular basis, and members of the community who attend and participate when issues or events important to them are teed up for discussion.

The meeting that was held today, April 28th, had all the makings of a classic. A portion of the community, fueled by a series of communications that included official CCSD agenda packages, news reports from various sources, and most interestingly and impactful – Social Media. An amalgam of information – some accurate, some speculative, some clearly packaged to incite fervor, some innocently containing errors, and a whole lot of opinions, quickly formed and made larger through the immediacy of response that social media provides. There was some thoughtful discussion, serious probing questions and answers, and a huge amount of what I see as childish, mean-spirited and increasingly ugly personal attacks that turned an individual into the devil on earth. The game was 21st century telephone, where the story morphed slightly with every comment, where every number became a “fact”, where every theory became the gods-honest-truth, where every random statistic, report, website, and snippet of a news story was concatenated into a narrative that might make a great daytime TV show. A different viewpoint became a reason to throw down personal challenges. Opposite positions turned into “agendas.”

The meeting time drew close. The crowds gathered, folks engaging in serious-looking discussions. Handouts, binders, tablets and notepads flashed and bounced as last minute changes, questions, and speaking points were finalized. 30 minutes before the start of the meeting the library across the street was busy with folks researching, copying and preparing for their turn at the podium. I know because I was sitting there trying to get some work done!

The local television station’s logo appeared on a small SUV. Exciting! A general assignment reporter set up her gear, snagging interviews outside the Vet’s hall. Then, inside for more interviews, including a short session with two Board Members. Local print media was, as always front and center, ready to document the meeting. In addition to the beat reporter, the paper’s editor was also in attendance. I don’t know if there were other media representatives in the house, but I’m pretty sure there were a few of us “citizen journalists” in the audience.

I use that term semi-seriously as I don’t have an editor looking over my work and applying the scrutiny and standards of fairness and accuracy traditional media sources are supposed to follow. I say supposed, because just about every media report I’ve seen has contained either factual errors, blatant “spin”, or heavily unbalanced reporting that did not fairly represent the “whole story.” Even the TV reporter got a major fact wrong in her report on the 6 pm news. This whole paragraph represents this new blend of journalism – a mix of fact, opinion and spin that makes this my citizen journalist story, and not a professional journalist story. But still…

DEMOCRACY AT WORK.

Showtime!

The meeting was late getting started, as the Board President delayed the gavel in order to allow latecomers to arrive and settle in. Everyone expected the session to be contentious. After all, the reason for much of the passion revolved around something that gets the blood to boiling. Money, or more accurately compensation. A proposed employment contract for the General Manager was on the agenda and it had folks seeing red. Both literally and figuratively. Red ink dripping onto a community that has been under the pressure of increased rates for water and associated services. Red ink from significant investments in technology designed to alleviate the uncertainty of an unreliable water supply. Red – blooded rage over a proposal that would reward the General Manager with a healthy compensation package that would extend out several years. Red rage that anyone had the nerve to negotiate and accept a compensation package that reflected what he and his employers determined was competitive and fair. Red-hot emotions being stoked by other red hot emotions. That’s a lot of red!

Now, this pressure cooker might have popped but for one simple action. The Agenda item that was stoking all the passions was removed prior to the official meeting. I can speculate as to why, by I’ll just say that I believe it was pulled in response to all the red rage that was building up on social media, and probably being expressed directly or indirectly to the Board members. I personally sent the Board an email expressing my support for the General Manager and outlining why I thought the compensation package was fair. I’m sure I am not the only person on either side of the issue who wrote an email or made a phone call.

The public did get to comment, though at a much smaller level and without the full force of engagement that may have led to some closure for some parties. Maybe not – and maybe that opportunity will present itself in a future meeting.

WHY?

There are a few ways to view the Board’s decision to pull the item and kick it down the road. Perhaps, seeing and feeling the passionate response from a portion of the community, they decided that they needed to revisit the contract. Perhaps they wanted to get more input from the larger community so they could feel comfortable that they were acting based on balanced feedback. Perhaps they feared the issue would further divide and damage the community already raw from past divisions. Perhaps they just lost their courage and decided that avoidance was an easier path. I find it pretty much unbelievable that every member of the board was not fully aware of the contract, it’s conditions and impacts and the potential negative reaction from part of the community. I suppose it is possible that they all didn’t have one or more discussions of the pact as it was being negotiated, finalized and presented to the GM for agreement. I personally don’t believe that for a second, but it’s possible! I think they felt the heat, and decided to retreat. Kind of a crappy thing to do for a couple of reasons.

First, it displayed a real weakness. If the board went through the process of bringing this agreement to this stage, they should have the courage to present it, discuss it with the community, take the heat, and cast their vote publicly, as is their responsibility.

Second, it deprived the community of the opportunity to have their say. There was a lot of work put in by a lot of people who were ready, willing and able to speak plainly and publicly. This action allowed people to “declare victory” – “look at us, we made the board cave! We defeated the evil greedy so-and-so who was ripping us off and colluding with secret cabals of developer overlords…” It gave some the “evidence” they need to convict everyone of every possible crime and misdemeanor, (voiced or inferred) imaginable.

Third – it pretty much threw the General Manager under the bus. Rather than defend their decision and make their case of why they felt he deserved the proposed compensation, it left him even more vulnerable to the ugly smears and insults he has been subjected to over this issue. Hey, if the Board won’t stand behind him, he must really be awful!

Fourth, it further diminished the legitimacy and authority of the Board, and to me portrayed them as round-heeled. Push them and they fall over backward. This perception grew into a certainty as the meeting progressed, and more and more people became increasingly more disrespectful to the rules of the meeting. Audience members talking out of turn, arguing with the Board President, interrupting other speakers, and generally acting like defiant children.

I support community involvement. I applaud political and civic activism. I admire people who take a step forward and lead in times that are difficult. It takes courage to engage in public, and courage to engage out of the limelight. Truth to power and all that. I lose interest and respect for all that when it crosses the line of reasonable engagement and becomes more about the person, or the opinion. It turns from an effort to drive change and fairness to an effort to win points. Sadly, that played out during the course of this meeting, and at the end it was just about a free-for-all.

Sad.

I’ll wrap with my impressions of the Board, which came into a sharpness of focus today that I wasn’t really expecting. I think all the board members are good and decent people, and they each bring a real passion and commitment to public service. I don’t know why they do it – it is the ultimate example of a thankless job. So of course I’ll pile on with my own criticisms!

President Robinette is clearly driven by a sense of fairness, decency and order. It seems she is often treated with some degree of disrespect both by the community and her fellow Board members.

Director Bahringer seems to always be on the verge of breaking out into a swearing jag! He also tends to be a bit of a bulldog, which at times leads less than respectful behavior. He is a guy who likes to be in charge.

Director Sanders seems to be both incredibly well informed and incredibly thin-skinned. He often comes across as condescending and dismissive, which probably incites some unintended passion in community members.

Vice President Thompson – quiet. Can be overlooked, but when he does engage he seems to have his ducks aligned.

Director Rice – I used to think she was heart-on -her sleeve, deeply involved and committed to the community with a pragmatic yet hopeful outlook. After today my view has expanded to include a sense that she is more shrewd and calculated than I thought, and she is becoming more expert in managing and using the prevailing emotion on an issue.

The meeting has ended, but it is not even close to being over.

Yay democracy!