You will recall I earlier mentioned how Director Ross misrepresented the “email exchange” regarding his multiple requests for a special two agenda meeting on August 31st to:

1) Reorganize the board (new President and Vice President), and,

2) “rubber stamp” a past and inadequately reviewed budget so as to meet a September 1st deadline.

[Do not fear, the budget that was approved can be modified later by a board willing to do the work as a budget is only a suggested guideline and not set in stone.]

As most will appreciate, having a budget prepared by the deadline is not as important as having a good budget that is adequate and workable. There are not any serious ramifications for taking more time to do the job right the first time.

{I can hear it already…….”I was the director who made sure the LDPCSD budget was on time!” —-But the flip side is actually: “Don’t worry about the deteriorating and leaning foundation – keep stuccoing the walls, tiling the roof and painting that barn those hideous colors and patterns I picked out!”- LOL}

ANYWAY, Director Ross (in his board packet supporting the Special Meeting) only included his most recent request and my second “short” response denying the request. Hardly an accurate record of what really occurred.

This is how the communication actually transpired, starting with Director Ross’s August 28th request:

_________________

Lew:

 

Since the budget is due by September 1st, we need to schedule a special meeting to get the budget approved ASAP to be in compliance with the law. We could approve the budget that Charise prepared, but direct staff to make any adjustments that the Board wants, like pay increases.

 

Also, the Department of Public Health needs a five year plan and a capital improvement plan submitted by September 15th per Randy. Our next regular meeting is on the 17th. That item could be addressed at the special budget meeting.

 

For the five year plan, we could take the Prop 218 five year plan and extend it out for two years. Betsy could help the staff prepare this if necessary.

 

Thanks, Lew.

 

Emery

 

 

ER: br

_________________________

[NOTE: Director Ross offering his wife’s assistance (Betsy Ross) to help with the budget was the second such offering because immediately after the Financial Administrator/Treasurer/Board Secretary quit Emery suggested Betsy could also perform the duties as the Financial Administrator. Anticipating the question – yes, Betsy Ross (br) usually prepares all such correspondence for Mr. Ross.] The following was my same day (August 28th) response to Director Ross:

___________________________

Syndie, could you please see to it that all directors receive the CDPH communication with which Randy apparently briefed Director Ross? Thank you.

 

Emery, considering the recent information from Mr. Herrera: (1) that the board may have some applicants to interview for the vacant positions very soon; (2) those positions are intimately involved with the budget; and (3) the fact the budget has often been late in the past without any serious ramifications, I believe following up on the hiring process should take priority. Having an experienced new employee(s) working on the budget would be of great benefit to the district as well as a good introduction to our district business for the new employee(s).

 

This would also apply to any CDPH reporting procedures. Regarding the CDPH five year plan and CIP submittal, I believe your stated Sept 15th deadline is incorrect and is merely a required response date, not a completed work deadline. Lew

___________________________

NOTE: Mr. Ross was indeed incorrect about the deadline and all subsequent follow up was unnecessary.

Director Ross to Richardson, August 29th, 2012

___________________________

Lew:

 

On July 16, 2012, there was a special Board meeting with a public hearing and presentation of the proposed FY 2013 budget. The budget mirrored the budget in the voter-approved Prop 218 five year plan.

 

All the Board needs to do now is approve Resolution 2012-7 (page 2 of the July 16 Board packet) changing the resolution with a new date and the President and Secretary names. No one needs to prepare a new budget; it has been completed already and presented to the ratepayers. As I recall, we did not approve the budget on the 16th because of questions on the salary plan. We could approve the resolution but freeze pay rates pending a recommendation from the new IGM. The new IGM could spend their time developing a new salary plan and working on policies, as recommended by the auditors and the Grand Jury.

 

Let’s have a short meeting and get this budget approved ASAP, prior to September 1st, to be in compliance with the law. Adoption of the budget will give the staff the authority to make expenditures and will allow our financial statements to be completed.

 

Thanks.

 

Emery

 

ER: br

____________________________

Notice how Mr. Ross’s first email speaks of possible pay increases, yet the following one suggests freezing pay rates along with omitting his wife’s involvement with his big plan. Believing I had already appropriately responded to Mr. Ross’s request for another unnecessary Special Meeting on August 28th, my second (and final) answer was short and to the point on August 29th:

____________________________

“Director Ross, I understand your email as a request to schedule a Special Meeting. I decline to do so. Lew Richardson, Vice President”

____________________________

Director Ross’s self-prepared August 31st packet totally misrepresented my response to his repeated requests for a Special Meeting by including his last (different) request and my second short final answer. What do you expect when the request was disingenuous in the first place with the primary focus of removing me as Vice President?

Gee, Mr. Ross evidently wrote a nice reasonable request and I dismissively responded so impolitely. Oh please – total misrepresentation.

Apparently, Directors Ross, Skoien and Kinsella, believe presenting and approving a budget on the same day is reasonable. I disagree. Far more study and deliberation should have been made – especially when your financial administrator/treasurer just quit. (There is another issue which the public is unaware but in light of the resignation reporting such doesn’t make much sense since the matter was OBE…..Overtaken By Events.)

IMAGINE WHAT WAS GOING ON

Think about the chaos going on at the LDPCSD and in the community at this time ….. our Administration Office was destroyed by a suspicious fire; then the termination of a long time employee (the entire board was never involved in that termination); then three resignations in a row, starting with a part time hourly worker all the way to – the most recent by our former IGM who had 31 years experience as a water professional and who was making major positive changes while continuing to research and evaluate more efficient ways to operate……but that’s another story that will have to wait for a while.

(Heck it will probably take a whole chapter in the book explaining how this district was once again derailed by people pursuing their own personal interests which is absolutely reprehensible.)

ANYWAY, I was not satisfied (either are many others) with the lack of research and study of this hastily approved budget. Wes Barton did a wonderful job in explaining to the public that Ross’s proposal WAS NOT A MIRROR IMAGE OF THE VOTER APPROVED 5 YEAR PLAN AND HAD MAJOR FLAWS THAT NEEDED ADDRESSING. Barton also pointed out the apparent consensus of the attendees that the two item agenda meeting was unnecessary and planned poorly for a Friday before a three day weekend when many people had company visiting.

I will agree that Barton needs to “talk down” a bit to the public with less financial terms and provide more everyday examples of what he is saying, but his “watch” over our finances is comforting.

ATTORNEY RECOMMENDED MATTER CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 6th

So, a September 6th meeting was later required because Directors Ross and Skoien refused to hear a legal matter that the attorney requested the board decide on August 31st.. Their failure to act was {incorrectly} justified by stating the attorney’s recommendation and Government Code (Brown Act) authorizing such action was a violation of the Brown Act….in the opinions of Ross and Skoien. (Still stuccoing and painting the barn weird colors.)

Once again, on September 6th, Director Ross refused to participate in a Closed Session meeting this time citing personal reasons which have never been adequately explained to the attending public who asked legitimate questions. While walking out of the board room into the parking lot Ross confidently assured the attendees the Closed Session meeting would take a long time.

How curious that he was absolutely correct. A very simple issue that should have taken a “normal board” maybe 15 minutes at the most was dragged out unmercifully due to a director’s obvious personal interest and concern. But I can’t tell you the story because it was closed session material. This is insane.

NO CRYSTAL BALL NECESSARY THIS ELECTION

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK – IT IS DOCUMENTED FACT AND ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR EVERY VOTER IN THE UPCOMING LDPCSD ELECTION TO UNDERSTAND!

Directors Ross and Skoien, in addition to elevating their opinions above that of our attorney, have dismal attendance and voting records for meetings and general participation (probably record setting), yet both are running for re-election. It would take much work in researching the matter, but I am relatively confident Director Mark Skoien has the record for abstaining on a vote which even district policy recommends avoiding. Repeatedly sitting on the fence of important issues is not taking an active role in leadership and ignores the “Oath of Office” every director takes.

Perhaps without the adequate preparation as to the matter at hand – and fearful of making a decision – “non decisions” are the best policy for directors who apparently walk a thin line in pandering to both sides of an equation. Placate everyone without actually doing anything. Track record my friends, track record. This is not responsible representation of the public’s interests.

A MODERN DAY HYDRA MONSTER?  

Poor Hercules, every time he cut off one of the heads of that multi-headed monster, two grew back! LOL

You know, it is extremely difficult to keep up with the nonsense perpetrated by some directors that inevitability, and intentionally, distract from the important issues of this district. It happens again, and again, and again with absolutely no accountability for serious past transgressions. Seems one untruth is simply replaced with another. Honestly, every time I post a report about this mess I realize there was much more that should have been included, but ten or fifteen pages is already over-kill for the average reader.

Being an active participating member of a board takes work, plain and simple. The sad part is the work is not that difficult when a board is focused on district issues and not pandering for votes or creating “look at me – proposed quick fix –resolutions” without proper research or investigation.

CHECK OUT THOSE BODs

The concept of a Board of Directors being 5 bodies (individual directors) with one head (ultimate decision making authority) is exactly the opposite here at the LDPCSD because what we have are 5 heads with one body. (Actually the “5 head comment” is being extremely generous if considering relevant contributions.)

Like the old science fiction monster movies where cephalic disorders reign high as a result of over exposure to chemicals and/or radiation, our “multi-headed board” pursues and obstructs various courses of action simultaneously in a never ending battle of single-headed perspectives which are often oblivious to the public interest.

That’s the kicker, most of the wasted time and effort has little to do with promoting what is best for our district and customers, now or in the future.

LAST MEETING SO TYPICAL

OK, forward to the Monday, September 17th, 2012 Meeting where Director Emery Ross proposed his Resolution 2012-12. Although my previously posted poem (Wannabe King?) pretty much sums it up, this “dog and pony show” (or “hydra-monster presentation”) warrants further comment since the far majority of viewers were not at the meeting which actually boasted an audience of 25 people. Excellent attendance – please keep coming to meetings and thank you all for addressing the podium during comments and staying on subject.

HELP YOUR LDPCSD— BRING STRANGERS TO MEETINGS!

I was quite pleased with the meeting but it probably didn’t hurt that there were some unfamiliar faces in the audience. Maybe we should start paying strangers to attend meetings so the traditional disrupters will never know if there is an official from another governmental entity present? Pickup hitch-hikers and drop them off at meetings with promises of free food and drink? Maybe a BIG inflatable “Sergeant at Arms” in the corner? LOL 

DIRECTOR ROSS’S RESOLUTION 2012-12 WAS EXTREMELY PREMATURE

Director Ross’s RESOLUTION 2012-12 was another “short circuit” to the TRANSPARENCY OF GOVERNMENT concept where the people (in this case LDPCSD ratepayers) have a right to be advised of proposed government action along with the opportunity to comment prior to final decisions.

1. There was no adequate investigation as to the feasibility or possible ramifications of such a major change in district financial operations.

2. There was no serious discussion by the entire board at a public meeting

3. The stated reasons for necessity were weak and unsupported.

4. Resolution 2012-12 needlessly expended staff, attorney and director time.

MY FIRST REACTION TO ROSS’S RESOLUTION?

(Other than the traditional disbelief and frustration?)

I telephoned Mariposa County Tax Collector Keith Williams on Friday morning, September 16th, 2012 since Ross had already publically stated he had spoken with Mr. Williams about the matter.

NOTE: Mr. Keith Williams has always accepted calls and should be acknowledged and commended for his personal response and clarity of information regarding such matters.

Mr. Williams confirmed he had spoken with Director Ross, however,

1. No research or preparation for such designation had been started by his department;

2. Such designation would likely take months due to the involvement of other County Departments and the Board of Supervisors;

3. He was unaware that LDPCSD Resolution 2012-12 was ready for possible approval by the LDPCSD Board of Directors at the next Monday meeting, and

4. Even if the LDPCSD Board approved the Resolution it would have no effect with the County of Mariposa.

I still cannot believe this was even proposed because by definition, a resolution is a formal expression of determination to pursue a particular course of action already deliberated and decided!

The intent to immediately make this major change in District financial operations, without adequate research, discussion or public input is evidenced in three parts of this Resolution.

1. “hereby designate the County Treasurer of Mariposa County as the treasurer of the Lake Don Pedro Community Services District…”

2. “….district staff is authorized to work with the County Treasurer to begin the process of establishing the district’s funds with the County including closing bank accounts and alternative depositories as necessary, and

3. “THEREFORE, this resolution was passed and approved by the Board of Directors of the Lake Don Pedro Community Services District, this 17th, day of September, 2012, by the following vote:…”

VOTERS IN LESS THAN 2 MONTHS will decide which directors will represent their interests in this district and such a major decision should likely be made by that governing board. Obviously research into the feasibility of such a change could start now if the board wanted and the results presented to the new board for possible action. I have no problem with ideas, but please, let’s all take a deep breath, study and think about issues before running off and unilaterally creating resolutions changing district financial operations.

ROSS REASONS FOR THIS MAJOR CHANGE WERE VERY WEAK

1. Financial Administrator resigned: Radically changing the traditional District financial operation because one employee resigned is analogous to throwing away a useful piece of equipment because one replaceable component failed. (REPLACE THE COMPONENT!)

2. Government Code 61050: General Manager and Treasurer can be the same person. Hiring a GM could remedy the necessity of another employee for Board Treasurer.

3. Designating the County Treasure to serve as treasurer of the district (transferring responsibilities) is not synonymous with more oversight of district finances and improving internal controls. Director Ross has again confused two very different issues yet combines them as justification for his proposed transfer of financial responsibilities.

 

Viewers might be reassured with the fact our LDPCSD attorney also commented on the seriousness of such a change and cautioned about a hasty decision.

LEW! SHUT THE HECK UP. WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE RESOLUTION?

Okay, sorry—nothing. After opening the meeting and immediately after the Pledge of Allegiance, Director Ross repeatedly tried to remove his curiously inappropriate Resolution from the agenda. I stated it would be addressed in order as listed on the agenda, which it was.

At that time I made many of the same arguments and comments already presented to you viewers here. Director Ross withdrew the item for discussion and vote. I wonder what would have happened if we had a more traditional audience of 3-5 people and there was no public knowledge about the proposed action? Could such nonsense have been approved?

“Oh, you didn’t happen to stop by and read the public notice? Sorry, the board has already approved this major change in financial operations at the last meeting. You should have been more vigilant in checking the posted notice.”

The above example is one of the things the Open Meeting Act is designed to prevent – lack of prior public notice before government action.

Actually there is one other point I would like to make regarding Ross’s proposed and withdrawn Resolution and how it is very similar to other situations where he has unilaterally scheduled and then simply withdrawn a matter from the agenda and board consideration.

“HANG ON”…… NOT THIS TIME, MAYBE NEXT

Previous IGMs have been subjected to similar erratic and improper activity as well, including late night telephone calls advising how the IGM should perform. [Telephone records could easily verify the times, duration and frequency of such calls.] I recall one former IGM who had a day or so to fret and worry about whether he was going to be disciplined or even have his employment terminated over some disagreement he had with Director Ross yet when the meeting item came up on the agenda, Ross simply withdrew the request like it was no big deal at all. It just disappeared like water vapor. WHAT?

I’m sorry, but that’s the employment equivalent to marching someone up to the gallows, placing the noose around their neck, vocalizing all legal notices to the public like the execution order, maybe a short prayer, placing a hand on the lever to the trap door, then halting the whole process with a simple: “ahhhh, not today”.

Psychologically this is a form of torture and a totally inappropriate way to treat any employee. It is simply a diabolical method of control – constantly reminding an IGM that he is an “at will employee and serving at the pleasure of the board”.

Reprehensible conduct for any director much less one who consistently brags about how many years supervising experience he has with a Special District. A special district, where according to Mr. Ross’s own writings, routinely kept resignation forms handy in files in case any employee might want to resign. Seriously, I kid you not. Every HR (Human Resource) person I have talked with has never heard of such a thing.

MOSTLY HOUSE KEEPING CHORES

Most of Monday’s meeting was pretty straight forward with the required board approvals of routine stuff, Treasurer’s Report (Wes Barton has agreed to fill in until an employee is designated with that responsibility), paying bills, Minutes, and correspondence.

RESIGNED FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE

I believe my submitted resignation speaks for itself:

_______________________

“Please be advised as of Monday, August 20th, 2012 I hereby resign my position on the Finance Committee. I’ve learned much and will continue to study and attend meetings as an observer when able. Since Director Ross has already suggested that his wife Betsy, who is experienced in such matters, could temporarily fill the Financial Administrator position (Emery acknowledged it would be voluntary with no pay since he was a director), I think the Finance Committee would be the perfect place for Director Ross and his wife especially since Mr. Ross has suddenly become interested in joining committees.

Thanks for the education, Lew Richardson”

__________________________________

[NOTE: I am still on the Public Relations, MID, and Personnel Committees.]

Director Ross agreed to serve on the Finance Committee but do not worry about any other strange resolutions coming out of that committee because “Bean Counter” Wes Barton keeps a keen eye on our finances.

Say what you want about his emphatic lectures at meetings but this district is lucky to have access to his experience. I cannot count the number of times he has discovered and reported financial errors or omissions in public meetings. Heck, the reporting process Mr. Barton set up years ago was one of the examples of a good documentation procedure in a recent Finance Training class I attended. Comforting to know we were already doing it like the class recommended.

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

Item H, Organizational Chart of the district was something I requested that did receive  approval by the board (4-1 Skoien abstained).   Essentially it streamlines the hierarchy of employees by clearly designating the General Manager as the top district supervisor as outlined in various sections of the Government Code.

________________________

61000. This division shall be known and may be cited as the

Community Services District Law.

_____________________________

Government Code 61051 states:

The general manager shall be responsible for all of the

following:

(a) The implementation of the policies established by the board of

directors for the operation of the district.

(b) The appointment, supervision, discipline, and dismissal of the

district’s employees, consistent with the employee relations system

established by the board of directors.

(c) The supervision of the district’s facilities and services.

(d) The supervision of the district’s finances.

_____________________________

Government Code 61002:

(f) “General manager” means the highest level management appointee

who is directly responsible to the board of directors for the

implementation of the policies established by the board of directors.

__________________________________

Our previous organizational chart came about due to vacancies in the key positions of Financial Administrator, Treasurer and Board Secretary which were filled by one salaried employee. Our district was “top heavy” with two salaried employees, the General manager and the Financial Administrator/Treasurer/Board Secretary.

NOTE: The same person being both Treasurer and Financial Administrator was a problem of “checks and balances” for our auditors who also advised changing that position.

This prior organization created a situation where (arguably) one employee answered only to the board of directors who appointed them and could not be disciplined or terminated by the GM. This had the unintended result of that position being basically immune from GM supervision and correction if necessary. I believe this new organizational chart not only now conforms to Special District regulations under the Government Code but will also provide a more stable and cleaner supervisory structure. (Our next IGM/GM will not be plugged into that same untenable working dilemma.)

RESOLUTION 2012-12 By Director Emery Ross: WITHDRAWN.

CLOSED SESSION

j. Government Code Section 54957 (b)(1) – Public Employment Title: General Manager: Request: Director Richardson – Possible Board action of filling the GM Position.

This Item was dropped due to a majority of the board preferring to continue advertising for the GM position.

Well, that’s about it for now. I need to get out and financially contribute to the District through more water usage on my landscaping!

LOL!

 

My best to you and yours, Lew

 

"....SO MANY HATS......"

PS:   Makes me ill to see my name on such an extremely premature District Resolution ready for vote with tomorrow’s meeting date already included.   Tell you one thing, even if three directors agree to pass this “knee-jerk” response proposal —- I will not sign the document because of the lack of due diligence in researching, investigating, and discussing the matter in open public meetings according to the Brown Act’s intention of public transparency of government action.

Director Ross Resolution 2012-12 Request

RESOLUTION 2012-12 page 1

When responding to one of Mrs. Limbocker’s nasty comments under my youtube video about the accidental exposure (while putting up camera equipment) of my index finger crease – that happened to look like a “human butt”, I stated to her:

“We may be on “opposite sides” of this “water fence” since you and your husband are in the real estate business.”

Mrs. Limbocker responded:

“That was the last time I will respond…you cannot reason with an unreasonable person…… However, I will be monitoring and documenting. By the way…we are not both in real estate. Just FYI” jlimbocker

Mrs. Limbocker states she and her husband are not both in the real estate business which may be technically factual if one of them is no longer actively working.   Department of Real Estate records however lists both Mr. and Mrs. Limbocker as real estate agents employed by real estate broker Premier Valley LFRO Inc, in Oakdale, California.    [Public records indicate Julia May Burgess and Calvin Douglas Limbocker were married in Los Gatos, CA on August 4, 1979.]

Real Estate License 01278455 issued to Calvin Douglas Limbocker (salesperson license issued 12/18/06) expires 12/14/14, and

Real Estate License 01274096 issued to Julie M Limbocker (salesperson license issued 2/5/00) expires 2/4/16.

Those interested can confirm this information with the California Department of Real Estate online license check:

http://www2.dre.ca.gov/PublicASP/pplinfo.asp

I apologize for any confusion.

My best to you and yours, Lew

 

 

 

 

 

 

94956.9.  Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a
legislative body of a local agency, based on advice of its legal
counsel, from holding a closed session to confer with, or receive
advice from, its legal counsel regarding pending litigation when
discussion in open session concerning those matters would prejudice
the position of the local agency in the litigation.
For purposes of this chapter, all expressions of the lawyer-client
privilege other than those provided in this section are hereby
abrogated. This section is the exclusive expression of the
lawyer-client privilege for purposes of conducting closed-session
meetings pursuant to this chapter.
For purposes of this section, “litigation” includes any
adjudicatory proceeding, including eminent domain, before a court,
administrative body exercising its adjudicatory authority, hearing
officer, or arbitrator.
For purposes of this section, litigation shall be considered
pending when any of the following circumstances exist:
(a) Litigation, to which the local agency is a party, has been
initiated formally.
(b) (1) A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the
legislative body of the local agency on the advice of its legal
counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a
significant exposure to litigation against the local agency.
(2) Based on existing facts and circumstances, the legislative
body of the local agency is meeting only to decide whether a closed
session is authorized pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subdivision.
(3) For purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2), “existing facts and
circumstances” shall consist only of one of the following:
(A) Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation
against the local agency but which the local agency believes are not
yet known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs, which facts and
circumstances need not be disclosed.
(B) Facts and circumstances, including, but not limited to, an
accident, disaster, incident, or transactional occurrence that might
result in litigation against the agency and that are known to a
potential plaintiff or plaintiffs, which facts or circumstances shall
be publicly stated on the agenda or announced.
(C) The receipt of a claim pursuant to the Tort Claims Act or some
other written communication from a potential plaintiff threatening
litigation, which claim or communication shall be available for
public inspection pursuant to Section 54957.5.
(D) A statement made by a person in an open and public meeting
threatening litigation on a specific matter within the responsibility
of the legislative body.
(E) A statement threatening litigation made by a person outside an
open and public meeting on a specific matter within the
responsibility of the legislative body so long as the official or
employee of the local agency receiving knowledge of the threat makes
a contemporaneous or other record of the statement prior to the
meeting, which record shall be available for public inspection
pursuant to Section 54957.5. The records so created need not identify
the alleged victim of unlawful or tortious sexual conduct or anyone
making the threat on their behalf, or identify a public employee who
is the alleged perpetrator of any unlawful or tortious conduct upon
which a threat of litigation is based, unless the identity of the
person has been publicly disclosed.
(F) Nothing in this section shall require disclosure of written
communications that are privileged and not subject to disclosure
pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5
(commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1).
(c) Based on existing facts and circumstances, the legislative
body of the local agency has decided to initiate or is deciding
whether to initiate litigation.
Prior to holding a closed session pursuant to this section, the
legislative body of the local agency shall state on the agenda or
publicly announce the subdivision of this section that authorizes the
closed session. If the session is closed pursuant to subdivision
(a), the body shall state the title of or otherwise specifically
identify the litigation to be discussed, unless the body states that
to do so would jeopardize the agency’s ability to effectuate service
of process upon one or more unserved parties, or that to do so would
jeopardize its ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations
to its advantage.
A local agency shall be considered to be a “party” or to have a
“significant exposure to litigation” if an officer or employee of the
local agency is a party or has significant exposure to litigation
concerning prior or prospective activities or alleged activities
during the course and scope of that office or employment, including
litigation in which it is an issue whether an activity is outside the
course and scope of the office or employment.

I previously told viewers I would resume positing meeting information with the August 31st Special Meeting which was orchestrated by Director Ross with the assistance of Directors Skoien and Kinsella, however, going a little further back might be helpful in understanding this continuing but intentional mess.

Considering the potential for legal action by particular former employees I am not going to get into the “nuts and bolts” of what actually happened (many, many pages) but can assure you I was extremely disappointed with some of the activities of sitting directors and their distorted perception of responsibilities.

Since my Presiding Officer’s Report was already read for the record I see no harm in posting it now. I stumbled a couple of times with words, but this is verbatim after all. LOL Here we go:

AUGUST 20, 2012 Meeting

PRESENT: President Bill Kinsella, VP Lew Richardson, Director Victor Afanasiev, and Director Emery Ross.

ABSENT: Director Mark Skoien

a. PRESIDING OFFICER’S REPORT:

“Our District is once again without a General Manager and currently out of compliance with the California Department of Public Health regarding employee staffing and reporting. We are also in violation of the MID agreement regarding Outside Merced Irrigation District Place of Use reporting.

This reoccurring lack of a GM situation is a result of what the Mariposa County Grand Jury diagnosed as a “dysfunctional” board of directors and I totally agree with that assessment. I believe micro-managing directors have again placed personal interests above that of the district and this flies in the face of California Government Code Section 61040 subsection (C) which states in part:

All members of the board of directors shall exercise their independent judgment on behalf of the interests of the entire district, including the residents, property owners, and the public as a whole in furthering the purposes and intent of this subdivision, division, I’m sorry, not subdivision.

Now this is my part – not the government code: officious intermeddling, intimidation through threatened disciplinary actions, improper individual investigations, changing an attorney drafted disciplinary action agenda, and the general lack of support of the GM by particular directors, all this and more, will continue unchecked unless the public demands accountability from their representatives. There are members of this board who refuse to allow this district to operate as designed which is with a general manager. The reason for this is simple, the lack of GM, the lack of a GM provides the environment for continued micromanagement of employees and operations according to their personal interests, and perhaps even, benefit.

District, business of this District should take place at this District in public meetings – no where else. Director Ross has a number of requests on this agenda, please read them and study them carefully considering the actual reason and motivation for each.

In the past we have had burglaries and illegal entries into buildings yet later discovered missing records that were never reported to the Sheriff’s Office. A possible arson of our administration building and lost records. An insurance loss rate of 288% over the baseline of 70%. We have a 26% water loss rate. When will enough be enough? We need John Turner to continue his professional and effective leadership and that is on the agenda which we will discuss later. OK, thank you for that.”

RESULT: IGM JOHN TURNER RESIGNED DUE TO A

LACK OF BOARD SUPPORT

OK, so we now move forward despite this major setback right? Wrong.

 

EMERY WANTS REORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD?

 

You see, when Bill Kinsella resigned as board president on August 9th, 2012 following public questions and criticism of his role in personally investigating a complaint against our former IGM, I became presiding officer by default according to the Brown Act. This was the recorded report out following that previously held Closed Session Meeting on August 9th, and how I proposed to proceed.

 

 

VP LEW RICHARDSON: “…and then ah one other thing that had happened that would be a report out was that Director Kinsella stepped down as president, so with the Board’s permission I’ll just continue as Vice President and preside over the meetings until November when the board can do its re, you know, its reorganization, after that time.”

 

Director Ross: Well we might want to do it before that but yeah fine

 

VP Richardson: Well if that’s what the board wanted to do that’s fine

 

LDPCSD Attorney Raymond Carlson: I’m hearing that Bill resigned as president?

 

Director Ross: Yeah

 

VP Richardson: Correct

 

Carlson: Did he resign from the board?

 

Director Ross: No

 

Director Afanasiev: No

 

VP Richardson: No

 

Carlson: NO? OK

 

 

August 20th, 2012 Agenda Item

 

p. BOARD REORGANIZATION:

Request: By Director Ross – Board reorganization due to resignation of Board President.

 

 

Emery Ross is so pathetically transparent. Please consider the following:

 

1. A new board will soon be installed after the November election;

 

2. Director Ross has resigned as director once and as president twice. The last resignation as president was recommended by the Grand Jury following an Under Oath interview and admonition not to repeat what transpired during that investigation;

 

3. Mark Skoien resigned as Vice President on his own volition and has stated he would not chair meetings;

 

4. Director Kinsella was harshly criticized by the next Grand Jury for his failure to appropriately conduct meetings. Prior to Director Kinsella’s resignation he was criticized in public at the meeting for his activity in the IGM resignation matter and then later resigned during a Closed Session.

 

5. Please also note that California Government Section 61043 clearly addresses such a situation by stating: “the vice president shall serve in the president’s absence or inability to serve.

 

 

61043. (a) Within 45 days after the effective date of the formation

of a district, the board of directors shall meet and elect its

officers. Thereafter, within 45 days after each general district or

unopposed election, the board of directors shall meet and elect the

officers of the board of directors. A board of directors may elect

the officers of the board of directors annually.

(b) The officers of a board of directors are a president and a

vice president. The president shall preside over meetings of the

board of directors and the vice president shall serve in the

president’s absence or inability to serve.

(c) A board of directors may create additional offices and elect

members to those offices, provided that no member of a board of

directors shall hold more than one office.

 

 

Note also that this section states the specific time board reorganizations shall take place (45 days of election or annually) which makes sense in respects to the continuity of a board. This helps to prevent unnecessary and repetitive politically motivated officer changes.

(Ironically, Director Ross’s second resignation as president is a perfect example. First he tossed the gavel and resigned in another one of his tantrums but a short while later with the support of Directors Keefe and Skoien essentially voted himself back in as president only to once again resign because of the Grand Jury’s recommendation that he step down as president.

Yes, that makes three resignations from district responsibilities which is precisely how he earned the title:

“RESIGNATION ROSS”.)

 

Considering all of this, I seriously doubt Director Ross honestly believes (or possibly understands) his proposed reorganization is legal, appropriate or in the best interests of this district and is only playing another one of his childish games for attention and attempted assumption of control while intentionally obstructing district business and progress.

 

DIRECTOR EMERY ROSS CALLS SPECIAL MEETING (with BOARD REORGANIZATION OF COURSE)

 

I had been told the new Administrative Office was due to arrive at 0700hrs on August 30th, so naturally I was there a bit early with my cameras and tripods. Naturally the estimated time of arrival was off by a few hours which is understandable considering the logistics involved in moving such structures from Southern California. Which secondary roads would permit safe vertical clearance, prevent traffic bottle necks, were safer, etc.? The details must be carefully worked out with CalTrans, CHP and other related agencies.

 

Modular installation workers, CSD employees, Pinnacle Emergency Management President Leo Grover, and others patiently waited for the new building arrival. Just a little after 0900hrs what was thought to be a white pilot truck (with an emergency yellow light attachment on the roof) headed up Merced Falls Road from HWY 132, cameras were ready but it turned out to be a false alarm. It was Mr. Ross who simply parked his “emergency light clad” personal truck along Merced Falls Road and he and Betsy headed into the office with paperwork in hand.

 

Finally just after 0930hrs the building arrived. Once temporarily parked near its future position, the structure sure took the unattractive sting out of our empty depressing lot.

 

EMERY’S SPECIAL MEETING

 

The paperwork Emery and Betsy marched into the office that day was a request for a special meeting with a 24 hour notice posted for the public. Emery had sent me a few emails regarding calling such a meeting and I explained why I thought it might be more efficient to wait for other issues and decide them all at once, but Emery persisted with his Special Meeting with his two agenda items: Board Reorganization (changing or assigning positions of President and Vice President) and the budget.

 

Those customers who received the “Board Packet” (materials in support of requested agenda items) created by Emery and Betsy Ross, received that which is so typical of Mr. Ross:

 

only half the story as to how events actually unfolded, but I’ll address those matters later.

 

EMERY ROSS’S AGENDA POSTED

 

After Emery’s Special Meeting agenda had been posted I learned there was another matter our attorney suggested the Board handle immediately. Since there was a time limit the matter could not wait for the September 17th, regular meeting so I decided (with attorney approval and recommendation) the best way to proceed would be to handle the urgent matter prior to Mr. Ross’s agenda items. (Reorganization/Budget)

 

The attorney provided the pertinent Government Code section of the Brown Act which specifically authorizes hearing emergency non-agenda items, in this case, a request from a State Department that the Board respond to a claim by a former employee. Simple right? Wrong! Not so simple in Emeryland.

 

According to Directors Emery Ross and Mark Skoien, hearing such a matter not on the agenda would constitute a Brown Act violation. WHAT? Ross and Skoien refused to hear the matter despite my reading the Government Code Section and repeatedly explaining it was not only permissible under the Brown Act, but required to timely respond to another State Department. I repeatedly advised it was attorney recommended but Ross and Skoien refused to hear the matter.

 

PECULIAR AND SELECTIVE LOGIC

Both Ross and Skoien remained steadfast in not hearing the attorney requested matter because it was not on the “ROSS AGENDA” but here’s the kicker, another issue which was also late for Ross’s agenda– the potential hiring of a General Manager – was discussed. WHAT?

 

The Brown Act Section authorizing non-agenda items to be heard is Government Code Section 54956.9. I had inserted the section but as is so typical with legal verbiage it took up 1-1/2 pages, so to shorten this posting and save you some time reading here’s the link to the material if you are interested:

https://lakedonpedro.org/?p=1727&preview=true

Directors Ross and Skoien simply decided not to perform their duty for one issue (former employee), yet proceeded with the second non-agenda item (hiring of a GM) .

 

 

DIRECTORS ROSS & SKOIEN believed the attorney’s advice and Brown Act Section authorizing the agenda additions violated the Brown Act?

 

Both seemed to think one matter was a Brown Act violation (which it was not) but the other matter was permissible because they wanted to discuss it under the same authorizing regulation. Simply, they decided which director duties they would actively participate and which they would intentionally ignore.

 

The former employee matter was continued to another future meeting but it should be noted that Emery Ross once again, later refused to hear the matter at the September 6th, 2012 Special Meeting citing personal reasons while walking out of the board room – but we’ll get to that later.]

 

DOES THIS “CRAZY BROWN ACT VIOLATION SUTFF” SOUND A BIT FAMILIAR TO YOU?

 

Remember when Emery Ross at the beginning of his new term refused to attend a director training class sponsored by a California State approved water organization because he believed a quorum of directors participating in the training was a Brown Act Violation? He apparently learned nothing from Brown Act Training.

 

Good Heavens. What did Emery think? That these approved training organizations were operating some sort of “Sting Operation” to ensnare unsuspecting directors in Brown Act Violations?

 

BACK TO EMERY’S SPECIAL MEETING (August 31st, 2012)

Once again Mr. Ross has clearly illustrated his deceptive nature and penchant for misrepresenting the truth of a matter. The material in “Ross’s Board Packet” (which is also provided to ratepayer’s requesting such) in support for his calling a Special Meeting (with support from Directors Skoien and Kinsella) consisted of only one of his differing requests for such a meeting and only my second brief written denial to call a Special Meeting.

 

 

As you already know with the recent JLIMBOCKER ATTACK, the “rent a mob” is gearing up with the traditional unfounded accusations and personal insults which are intentionally designed to distract from the business of this district. Gee, wonder why?

 

There’s a lot going on right now (you wouldn’t believe it) but I’ll try to get back to Director Ross’s August 31st, 2012 Special Meeting farce as soon as possible. Later!

 

 

 

My best to you and yours, Lew

 

 

• In answer to your question…..what did I think I saw in this photo?….and how did this image end up with the Hawk photos? Hey lew….answer that yourself. You are a very sick person and why would anyone care to see that? Is this your butt? Are you now going to expose your frontal side now too? I have found out a lot about you after the last board meeting….and it has not been good.

jlimbocker5 hours ago

• Your confusing comment exemplifies what I learned about you at the Lake Don Pedro Community Services District Board of Directors meeting in La Grange, California as well. You consistently remain ignorant to facts then act accordingly with personal insults, rude behavior and spurious accusations. Please be advised there are numerous websites which could cater to your interest in male frontal nudity images, but I do not share your interest or participate in such, good hunting! Lew 🙂

lew9532921 minutes ago

????????????????????????

Folks this is a perfect example of how some of the people around Lake Don Pedro seem to be stuck in a perpetual cycle of ignorance and self denial.

What is so bewildering is the tenacity with which they cling to their obvious stupidity and continually engage in disingenuous activities, all the while apparently oblivious to how foolish and hateful they appear to others.

I really do not understand JLIMBOCKER’s comment because anyone who would take the time to view the video would understand exactly what happened to produce that image. There’s nothing sinister, nasty, obscene or disrespectful there. Good Heavens!

SO:

JLIMBOCKER could not understand the video because?

1. They did not view it and only commented based on what someone else incorrectly told them (this is usually the case with gullible/ignorant people who will believe just about anything if that is what they want to hear)

2. They viewed it only up to the “mystery photo” and became so enraged (or excited) they couldn’t watch the rest

3. They cannot read and only looked at images (“BUTT” even then, there is the clear “OKAY photo” explaining the image – complete with a flashing arrow under the finger crease – what sort of idiot could misunderstand that?

4. They cannot discriminate between a finger and an apparent “human butt”

5. They may possess some physical, mental or psychological challenge preventing normal perception, cognitive interpretation, and truthful expression

Whether this ignorance can be explained by any of the above reasons, or something else entirely, it really doesn’t matter. Any author who writes about things they know nothing about in a public environment only provides a glimpse as to their basic intelligence, integrity, and honesty.

Shame on you JLIMBOCKER!

You are a malicious and ignorant individual who thrives on creating and perpetuating disinformation for your own warped personal interests. The thought of your proposed service to this LDPCSD Board of Directors is repugnant and illustrates exactly why this district continues to suffer – because of hateful people just like you.

LOL

🙂

OK, with that unpleasantness out of the way, for those of you brave enough to view a simple little humorous video that does not contain any indecent photos, images or videos, so as to understand what our resident crackpot know-it-all JLIMBOCKER is erroneously babbling to the world about, here’s the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSrzTKM1vyo

My best to you and yours, Lew

 

Don’t worry – I was nervous my first time too – that’s normal.  Scared I would accidently or negligently do the wrong thing.  Afraid one inattentive moment might launch into action a series of related events I could not control, much less desired. Anyway, it’s easy, here’s an example. You go to the original file <journal>, highlight, copy, then paste into this open blog format page in center screen. Between the verticle menu columns and under the top menu bar?  That area? Yeah, watch – I’ll show you with this attempted humorous analogy to an election I’m following in Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties. I’ll select and copy that junk just to show how it works, keep the dual screen active and follow what I will insert from my journal…..OKAY..     Watch, I’m inserting it now….3—–2—–1 – insert!

See it is easy

Hey Lew why did the draft file disappear on the blog index heading?

What?

The draft file HERE’S AN EXAMPLE – it’s gone. Just disappeared.  It was there a second ago then “poof” gone

Hang on……Dang it! I may have clicked PUBLISH instead of SAVE DRAFT! Give me a call, how do I remove this garbage from the website?

MBTYAY,L  😉 

<<<<< CAUTION >>>>>

Although my personal feelings about Emery’s documented past service and continuing counterproductive activities are obvious, I caution viewers to recognize the paramount issue at stake is:

THE FUTURE OF YOUR COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT !

My rudimentary and unskilled attempts at satirical cartoons and humorous imaginary analogous stories are only offered in hopes of stimulating thought as to a major reason why our CSD Board remains “dysfunctional” with clear examples of past abysmal leadership.

TRACK RECORD

Fortunately the voters who participate in this November’s election for LDPCSD Directors are not in the dark as to what they might expect if any of the three incumbents are re-elected. Candidates, Bill Kinsella, Mark Skoien and Emery Ross have already demonstrated to the public exactly how they perceive and perform their duties as directors.

Simply put: they have a track record. Whether good or bad – there is little guess work required. Studying a past record of service is an excellent indicator of what to expect in the next four years if that individual is re-elected.

NOT PERSONAL. STRICTLY BUSINESS

Mr. Ross continually attempts to make the business of this district a personal issue between the two of us because it does two things he requires:

1. PROVIDES THE ATTENTION HE DESPERATELY DESIRES:

a. Waiting for the 59th day of a 60 day time limit to appoint a director vacancy when only one applicant had originally applied – “look at me! Look at me! I’m ready to make the big decision!”

b. Despite the fact Ross has refused to adequately perform his share of routine director duties like preparation for meetings, consistent meeting attendance, participation in committees or even coming to the office to sign checks, he never-the-less attempted to gain a position on the SDRMA (Special District Risk Management Authority, basically our insurance carrier) Board of Directors and failing that, then ran for the Mariposa County District II Supervisor’s position, with which he (fortunately for every Mariposa County resident) was also unsuccessful.

Emery Ross appears fixated upon collecting as many officious sounding titles as possible without the skills or commitment to adequately perform the duties. What were his public comments about what a County Supervisor actually does: shake hands and hand out honoraria? If that is what he publically thinks about a County Supervisor’s position imagine how insignificant being a director on the LDPCSD Board must appear to him? Perhaps he needs titles to quench some sort of a self-validation thirst?

2. DISTRACTS FROM THE CURRENT QUESTION, ISSUE, OR SUBJECT AT HAND:

a. The “personally attacking others” gimmick provides Emery (or anyone else who imbibes in such activity) with an opportunity for escape when it dawns on him his position is illogical, unsupported by the facts, or just plain foolish.

b. When Mr. Ross does attend meetings he is often unprepared and asks ridiculous questions that were clearly answered in the board packet if studied.

c. His consistent and annoying mumbling in the background of CSD meetings or when attempting to answer a question is common place and not excluded from other venues. This evidently was the case at a Supervisor’s candidate night when Emery accused the moderator of interrupting his train of thought when she asked him to speak up so the audience could hear. Apparently he walked out of that meeting in a huff as well. Track record my friends. Track record. Evidently our resident “cowboy” (no offense intended to real cowboys) has a propensity for the “R – U – N – N – O – F – T” – from the movie Brother Where Art Thou with George Clooney.)

MADE IT PERSONAL FROM DAY ONE

Following my first CLOSED SESSION MEETING, and in front of public attendees, just prior to starting the open portion of the meeting, Emery Ross marched up to the dais where I was seated and demanded my personal notes from the prior Closed Session. Not wanting to make a scene at the time and unsure if I had actually violated some obscure regulation I relinquished my personal handwritten notes.

As I later discovered (which is so often the case with the demands, accusations, and antics by Emery Ross), he had no idea what he was doing and this was confirmed through attorneys, Brown Act training professionals, and other experienced public officials. Emery does what Emery wants to do.

What could be worse? Well, in addition to the wrongful demand and confiscation of my personal property he also supposedly had my notes later destroyed. Having reconstructed them from memory after that meeting, I think I now understand why he objected and did such a thing.

[Another director was not required to produce and have destroyed her written material from that meeting. The material was supposedly destroyed by that director later at home.]

Simply, he was way off base in that Closed Session meeting and pontificating about things of which he had no experience, right, or duty. As is so typical with Emery, the meeting was quite dramatic. Without relaying the substance of the meeting I can tell you I felt as though I were in a high school locker room at halftime with the coach scribbling proposed plays on a dry board. I kid you not. Complete with identification of players, circles, X’s, lines with arrows, dashed lines, and notes ….. Emery was laying out his strategic game plan for District activities under his presidential leadership command.

DEALING WITH OUTRAGEOUS ACCUSATIONS AND PERSONAL INSULTS : “GA GA” ADVICE

When I was a child and upset about what another child may have said at school “GA GA”, my surrogate Grandmother who was actually my Mother’s Aunt, told me the magic word was “ignore”. She patiently explained the concept to me and how name calling by others can only hurt us if we allow it, but more importantly, by responding to the name caller we only give to them what they desperately desire – attention. How I wish she were still alive so I could further benefit from her 30 years of teaching experience in Sacramento many years ago.

I’ll tell you one thing for sure….. Old ”GA GA” was certainly strict and always prepared to teach. Taught me to read before I started school, but unfortunately, as a child I sometimes actually feared some of her visits because I knew it meant having to learn something, either that or my Mom and Dad would be subjected to a lecture on how they were too lenient in the areas of correction and punishment for otherwise minor childhood transgressions. YIKES!

GAGA: “In my day if a student acted like that in my classroom I would have taken the yardstick down from the chalkboard, marched them outside, and ……….”

CHILDHOOD LEW: “AHHHHHHH! – Mommy! GAGA is scaring me” LOL

DOCUMENTED PUBLIC FACT

The contention that Mr. Ross has failed to adequately (competently) discharge his duties as an elected official representing this CSD, and the ratepayers who must financially support the organization, is supported with the best evidence available – his own actions.

Mr. Ross has provided glimpses of his method of operation through verbal statements (recorded during public Board meetings), written materials (letters and memos [most] accompanied with signature along with many emails), along with numerous examples of his childish tantrums in public meetings which include walking out of meetings without participation.

You might recall Mr. Ross also once accused me of violating Federal Bio-Terrorism regulations by producing short educational videos for the public of non-sensitive district operations. He actually walked out of that meeting in protest as well. That didn’t make much sense because if I honestly believed for a nanosecond that another director was violating ANY REGULATIONS that could harm this district you wouldn’t be able to pry me out of my board seat …. I’d be watching them like a Hawk, documenting, and preparing to take corrective action.  I wouldn’t leave the boardroom and walk out into the parking lot.

SORRY GA GA – NOT IN THIS SITUATION

Ignoring name calling on a school yard might be good advice for a child, but I don’t believe it applies to a public official who has consistently obstructed CSD progress while seemingly protecting his own special interest as an outside Merced Irrigation District Place of Use customer (two water meters) running a commercial cattle ranch with treated (Chlorinated) water intended for domestic residential consumption. (Outside MIDPOU customers represent less than 1% of the CSD’s customer base.)

Recall also that Mr. Ross approximately two years ago made statements and started a major investigation that bad water from the district may have harmed his and other outside MIDPOU livestock ranchers which was also proved to be unsupported with fact.

FOR THE RECORD

I personally believe Emery Ross’s:

PAST SERVICE to this district is part of the problem, not the solution;

INCOMPETENCY is clearly evidenced by his own words, written statements and public conduct; and

RE-ELECTION will only perpetuate board “dysfunction” for another four years.

Emery’s most recent August 31st Special Meeting comment that I was untruthful was the “last straw”. Voters must know before the November election exactly what this man has done, and will continue to do, regarding the future direction of this Community Services District.

YOU ASKED FOR IT “COWBOY”  SO SADDLE UP

AND PREPARE TO ROCK ‘N ROLL

I have reached the end of my patience with the infantile behavior, disingenuous conduct, and name calling by Emery Ross. Although not a candidate because I have two years left to serve on a four year term, this election is far too important to allow such utter nonsense to continue unchecked without accountability.

Emery Ross orchestrated and called that Special Meeting on August 31st (with support from Directors Skoien and Kinsella) which will be the starting point for the next positing. Until then,

 

My Best To You and Yours, Lew

 

PS: Please be advised “write in candidates” still have an opportunity to run for one of these director positions in November. I believe the starting date for this process was September 10th and ends October 23rd, but check with your respective County Elections Office for confirmation.

I observed the above poster displayed outside the County Supervisor’s Board Room in Mariposa many months ago and was so intrigued with the message even took some photographs to remind myself as to the validity of the advertisement.  (Inside the entrance, looking towards the parking lot, on the short wall to the left of the glass doors.)

Unfortunately the positive contributions by people with a mental illness are often over shadowed or lost in the more memorable negative activities and atrocities committed by human beings. Random acts of kindness, compassion or even just unique perspectives/behavior considered “outside the box” are not as news worthy as the shocking, and sadly all too routine, examples of our inhumanity and disregard for each other.   But I digress.

Suffice it to say mental illness,  and/or the physical disabilities or challenges a person might possess are not valid reasons for dismissing any actual or proposed contribution. That is morally wrong, discriminatory, and often illegal.

 

HAVE WE ALREADY IMPLEMENTED THE PROGRAM?

Obviously, recognizing the outstanding accomplishments of some mentally ill people in society does not necessarily suggest canvassing mental hospitals or halfway houses in search of candidates for public service positions in government.  Some might argue examples of legislation leaving Washington DC or Sacramento may already indicate the recruitment process is in full swing.   Lol

The sad truth of it all is that voters often have no concept or indication of what a candidate might do once they take that oath of office and begin their promised service to the public.   An individual can say one thing as a candidate, turn around and do exactly the opposite as an elected public official and there isn’t much the voters can do.

[Recall the example of stuccoing and installing a tile roof on a barn and painting it outlandish colors in defiance of the attorney’s simple recommendation of just painting it red?]

 

My best to you and yours, Lew