Reading Time: 5 minutes
HAVE YOU TAKEN A LOOK AT THE
TUESDAY, MONDAY, MARCH 20th, 2017 AGENDA & PACKET? YOU SHOULD. KAMPA&KOMPANY ARE CERTAINLY WORKING ….BUT TO WHOSE BENEFIT?
Need to make this quick. We have a lot of rain coming in this next week. OH BOY! Everything will just start growing again when the Sun comes back out, but at least it will be much easier to take down the next time.
TO: THE THREE DIRECTORS WHO (to my knowledge)WERE NOT INVOLVED with orchestrating the “Grant Fund Solution to the OUTSIDE MIDPOU PROBLEM” – a source of much of the continuing controversy.
SUBJECT: KAMPA PROPOSED PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST RESOLUTION (and Debt policy)
FROM: Your “Blah blah blah (UGLY PILL FREE) Blogger Lew
Gentleman, shall we try another approach?
THE REAL PROBLEM
Substantial financial mistakes, errors, and possible intentional misrepresentations of fact that have been discovered and made public WERE NOT BROUGHT TO THE BOARD’S ATTENTION by GM KAMPA, (who is also Board Treasurer); his management company; or the various other highly paid financial experts our district employs for such purposes – but by our own resident customer and former Board President Wes Barton.
ONLY “CHECK & BALANCE” REMEDY AVAILABLE
For many years, and countless hours, Wes has used his financial and accounting background to double check our financial reports and procedures. Wes has made detailed public reports to the board regarding his research and findings at almost every Monthly Board meeting I have attended. Although essentially ignored by management, these reports have often ignited more director interest and actually resulted in board action which is very good for the district and customers.
WHY ELIMINATE “LOCAL GOOD”
I respectfully ask the three of you to consider NOT ONLY the TIMING OF THIS POLICY CHANGE (after substantial discrepancies were reported by Wes including how much money Kampa actually made compared to what he reported), but also its likely outcome of hampering or completely ELIMINATING A TRUSTED, RELIABLE AND NECESSARY CHECK & BALANCE against the continued domination of our public agency by a GM who is also a private for-profit management company president and businessman. (That old “SERVING TWO MASTERS” thing.)
WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE CHANGES? AND WHY?
Even the description of this “change” and the supporting data is cause for pause.
FROM THE AGENDA PACKET: “Debt and Public Records Request Policy – To remain in compliance with new laws and to achieve the CSDA Excellence in Transparency award, two new policies needed to be developed this month; and are included in this agenda packet for approval.”
IS THE DISTRICT CURRENTLY OUT OF COMPLIANCE?
FOR WHAT REASON? SAYS WHO?
DOES THE DISTRICT REALLY “NEED” THIS NEW POLICY?
DOES KAMPA NEED IT TO ELIMINATE UNCOMFORTABLE CHALLENGES TO HIS INCORRECT STATEMENTS?
ISN’T AN AWARD MEANINGLESS UNLESS PRESENTED FOR SINCERE ACHIEVEMENT AND NOT AS SIMPLE CAMOUFLAGE FOR PAST ACTIVITIES?
Included with this agenda item is a draft public records response policy developed from a model provided by the California Special Districts Association and in place with many special Districts throughout the state.
“…… A DRAFT PUBLIC RECORDS RESPONSE POLICY DEVELOPED FROM A MODEL…..”
Who’s draft? What model? Yes, yes…we know how tight Pete is with the CSDA.
“….and in place with many special Districts…..”
Comparable districts? Where? What size? Yearly income? Water license restrictions on place of use? Was their administration office also destroyed by arson? Did they have a GM return after 20 years to finish unethical work not completed the first go around, but this time with grant money? Etc.
The District’s website contains many of the documents normally requested of the District through this process. Staff’s intention is to maintain a vast reference library of important and timely public records on the website; which will save staff time and individual response effort.
STAFF’S INTENTION TO MAINTAIN….? OH PLEASE! LOOK AT THE WEBSITE!
MISLEADING FACTS IN SUPPORT OF RESOLUTION
“….The District’s website contains many of the documents normally requested….”
Perhaps, but also, many requested documents that are currently posted are STILL INACCESSIBLE AFTER MONTHS OF COMPLAINTS – ie, the Resolution 2013-4 prohibition of further OUTSIDE MIDPOU water service.
This can not possibly be an oversight, but an intentional refusal to provide truthful information to the public.
Why change another policy which will only restrain or possibly eliminate a reliable and proven “check and balance” from the customer side of the equation?
Instead of changing another policy, based on incorrect support material offered by KAMPA, why doesn’t the Board demand management to successfully complete that which is already presented to the world as finished?
Fix the 8 links under NOTICES on the website which do not work! First have KAMPA ADEQUATELY FINISH WHAT HE IS ATTEMPTING TO USE AS SUPPORT FOR YET ANOTHER MORE RESTRICTIVE POLICY CHANGE BEFORE CHANGING THAT POLICY!
DIFFERENT POLICY CHANGE FORMAT
This policy change presentation in the agenda packet deviates from the traditional comparison presented.
You know what I mean? Where the original policy is displayed with what is to be removed identified with strike out, and the proposed new material in a different font style and/or color for ease in identification, comparison and understanding of exactly what changes are to take place. (ie, like in voter pamphlets.)
CSDA LETTER HITS IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THIS RUSE
Please also review the Agenda Packet CSDA letter to the Hoover Commission (pages 6-10) regarding the proposed elimination of Special Districts. At the top of page 9 the letter states:
“It is impossible to productively take a one-size-fits-all approach to local government, and it is both counterintuitive and hazardous to consider a top-down approach to local government.”
And on page 8: Where special districts such as ours want services
“done well; and wants it done with local control and flexibility”.
Top of page 9 (under Community Engagement) where it states
“….special districts offer the opportunity for increased levels of community engagement”.
Where CSDA mentions the use of the LAFCo process criteria, please realize how this process was completely avoided in the GRANT MONEY SOLUTION TO THE MIDPOU PROBLEM:
Open and public local process;
(NOPE! The Grant Solution consisted of private communications, negotiations and agreements OUTSIDE the scrutiny of public monthly board meetings, conversations and agreements which also likely constituted serious Brown Act violations.)
includes input and participation of all affected parties;
(NOPE! 99% of subdivision customer opinions have been ignored and left completely out for decades)
(NOPE! Kampa’s private business interests, past LDPCSD OMIDPOU experience, and recent communications regarding “PLACE OF USE” water service issues also occurred outside the boardroom and could hardly be considered objective)
gives residents who receive and pay for the services the final say.
(NOPE! The 99% of entitled MERCED RIVER WATER using customers of the subdivision have been intentionally left out of such discussions and decisions for decades – they have had their district official records stolen, lost, fabricated and replaced but their opinions were of no concern back then or now, the only two important things required of them was/is continued ignorance of the facts and their money to fund further deceit.)
Also page 9: (This is a really important observation.)
“LET’S MAKE SURE WE ARE FIXING
A PROBLEM THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS”
PROBLEM: Incorrect financial information has been provided to the Board of Directors, the Public and other government entities by alleged professionals to which our district already pays a substantial amount of money for the proper management of these financial issues.
PROPOSED SOLUTION: (By PETE KAMPA – the GM/BOARD TREASURER and President of his own “for profit” special district management services limited liability company):
Restrict and/or completely eliminate the only truthful reporting
by our own local customer, former Board President and concerned advocate Wes Barton?
Who is this KAMPA RESOLUTION really intended to benefit?
wait! hear that?
My best to you and yours, Lew