or, …”like the relentless dripping leaks from 40 year old Blue Bell pipe, these are the days of our CSD”……  Perhaps….”All my customers?”  Well, regardless of whatever illustrative soap opera title might be used for comparison,  there is never-the-less “the continuing saga of Lake Don Pedro”.

Obviously, the good thing about verbatim transcripts is the fact they document in time an individual’s statements, opinions, or perspective on a given issue which is therefore not subject to misinterpretation or misrepresentation by others.  The bad thing is they take so long to prepare.  But even then the SO GOSIP (Same Old Group of Special Interest People) incorrectly complain that “Minutes” of meetings should not be posted on this site prior to being approved by the board.  Minutes?  Approval by the board?  Oh Please.   [The amazing part about that particular complaint is the fact it was made by a previous board secretary of the LDPOA who surely knows the difference between “Minutes” and a “Transcript”.]  Board approval of an individual’s opinion based on facts and publicly presented material at board meetings?

Interesting it is how these folks are essentially complaining that:

information presented in a public meeting should not be offered to the public for review and consideration in formulating their own opinions as to what is happening within this Services District and community.

The other major complaint is that I, as an elected official, must abandon my personal opinion and remain silent as to what I BELIEVE to be unethical and inappropriate activity based on facts and publically presented information by those claiming to represent the public’s best interests.

Seems to me if ANYONE should be upfront and forth coming about their personal perspective and opinions it would be a public official who has taken the responsibility (and an Oath of Office) to serve the public’s best interest.   

DRAW BACK OF BEING ON A BOARD

Reading the 2010-2011 Grand Jury Final Report was a very conflicting experience.  On one hand it was reassuring to know there was an official government panel of citizens who confirmed the serious problems many of us have recognized and took action, but on the other hand, the offending entity was “THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS” as a whole.   Didn’t matter that such activities were conducted without support from a minority of members, it was a “BOARD DECISION” and all must share equally in that report.  Sorry, but that sucks!   What if three directors decided to intentionally violate the law?  Still a Board decision and all directors, whether involved or not, are saddled with being part of that board.  [Recall the old expression that a chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link?  What about multiple “weak links”?]

“THE GRAND JURY SAID YOU CAN’T BLOG ANYMORE!”

That’s another cry of the SO GOSIP advocacy group which I have very carefully considered.  What did the Grand Jury Recommend exactly? 

“R-5: Board members should stop publishing documents that do not promote or represent the Districts interest as a whole”

First of all, I am not the only director that posts material on a website, however, I am the only one that stands behind what is written and presented with my own name, not the cowardly “anonymous authors” who are personally unaccountable for the garbage they attempt to pass off as truth.  Garbage like that isn’t taking a legitimate position, it’s just another spineless ANY MOUSE squeaking disinformation behind their shield of ANONYMOUS.    

Second, I believe the qualitative statement “that do not promote or represent the Districts interest as a whole” is the key here.   Does incorrect and/or intentionally fabricated information presented to the public at board meetings promote the district?  I don’t think so, but how was this answered by our CSD attorney?

“This recommendation cannot be implemented because it is directed at “Board members” and not at the District.  The District does not have jurisdiction or control over individual Board members exercise of their free speech rights and any attempt to do so would be an illegal prior restraint on speech.  This does not mean that free expression may not, under some conditions, give rise to liability or potential liability of the speaker for libel, slander, invasion of privacy, or under other legal theories.  The First Amendment and free speech is not always a complete defense.”

Seems pretty straight forward – expressing your opinion is permissible so long as you do not violate someone else’s rights.  Duhh. 

GETTING RECALLED AGAIN BY THOMAS PORTER ANYWAY

Tom Porter was able to recall the LDPOA Board of Directors because he didn’t care for the direction the Association was headed — working for the members and providing the truth in their blossoming NEW DISCOVERER newspaper.  Porter didn’t like it –  Poof!  Gone!   [Has anyone else noticed that apparently the owners’ association is going to skip another yearly election meeting?   Gee, maybe elections are completely unnecessary now that we have a Board of Directors approved by Thomas Porter?   Things are running so smoothly, maybe their terms will be extended for life?]  There’s no reason to believe Porter won’t use his influence to do the same with the Lake Don Pedro Community Services’ District Board of Directors eventually. 

No sense in remaining quiet while Porter Supporters continue to misrepresent the facts to customers for their leader’s own profit driven interests.

MONEY IS A TREMENDOUS MOTIVATOR

Always has been, probably always will be.  Sure isn’t a level playing field when volunteers motivated by what is best for the community are pitted against real estate and land development interests with vast sums of money and influence.  Heck, everyone wants their property values to go up but that is not what is happening.   The uncontrolled development in this area has not helped everyone’s property values and it isn’t too hard to understand the point when homes that were once priced at several hundred thousand dollars are going for a quarter of that price or less.   Such a housing environment is beneficial for those with the hard cash to pick up such deals but not so good for those foreclosed on or the other established homes in the area.

DON’T BE SURPRISED

Have you noticed any of the 400+ bills in Sacramento pending approval in the very near future?  Some look like they were specifically tailor made to address issues in Lake Don Pedro.    When I ran for a position on the board I believed local control of our water was extremely important and with hard work and dedication could be retained, but must now honestly admit to wondering if it is still possible.   Perhaps it would be better if the County were to assume control.  No doubt costs will go up to all consumers, but the County might be less susceptible to the special interest influence that has dominated this area for decades. 

Of course it could also be argued that the county also has been subject to such negative special interest…..remember all those “land developer convenience roads” constructed in our subdivision that did not meet 1991 State Responsibility Area Fire Safe roadway standards?  What’s happening now?   A new fire fee of $150/year for homes in a SRA area.   How long will it remain $150/yr?  Will those roads be brought up to standards with these new funds or will they remain as further problems for the future?  I think we all know who will actually end up paying for such serious digression from established regulations.   But I also imagine government agencies, like people, learn from their mistakes. 

Stay tuned…..I think a lot is going to be happening around here relatively soon.  Remember the quote by Buddha?

Three things cannot be long hidden, the Sun, the Moon, and the Truth! 

Until then –

My best to you and yours, Lew