I was doing some research on the “Outside Place of Use issue” when I re-discovered some public records documenting the sudden resignation by EMERY ROSS shortly after being elected to the LAKE DON PEDRO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS in 2005.

EMERY ROSS was elected in November 8, 2005; Oath of Office sworn on December 19, 2005, and resigned January 4, 2006 when he personally submitted a written resignation with an effective date to the LDPCSD office.

These first five (5) communications were received in the office on January 4th 2006 and addressed the following issues:

1. Notice of resignation and effective date
2. Ross name plate not present on the dais in front of his chair
3. ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) request for sensitivity training policy (unknown who made the handwritten notes, likely office staff or board member)
4. Request that his board packet be the same color as those of other directors, and,
5. Request for new Staff reporting format with required signature.

These submitted, and office stamped, communications are pretty much self explanatory.  Regarding number #4 however, if you have never attended a Board Meeting you would have no idea that Emery’s packet was often printed on color paper, usually light blue as I recall, because it made reading easier.  (This “different packet” has been brought up a number of times by meeting attendees curious if Director Ross was reviewing the same material as the rest of the board and audience.)  No big deal in my mind.  I did a little research on the subject and discovered various colors are in fact of great assistance for folks with certain reading and comprehension difficulties.

TIPS FOR READING

PRINT STYLE GUIDE

“DYSLEXIC LIKE ME” INFORMATION PAGE

The paper color should never have been an issue in the first place (if is was), for that is a very easy accommodation, but I do understand concern over some of the difficulties with special text and font style formatting and printing of all the packet information since much of it is comprised of only copies of the originals.  Reformatting charts, graphs, financial spread sheets, etc. would also naturally be much more difficult – if such requests were even made.  (Jeez, I couldn’t even get some of those old LDPCSD files to print correctly in their provided format!  lol)

ANYWAY, I have a much better understanding now of why so many special requests have been made through the years such as #5  above for a brief “heads up” staff analysis of subject information.  Actually, I think all of us would probably appreciate brief accurate reports of complex matters versus spending much time reading massive amounts of material.  (Weekends before Monday meetings for me were always occupied with reading packet material and I admit it ticked me off when I repeatedly observed precious board time being wasted with numerous questions needlessly asked due to the material obviously not having been read and/or understood.)

Unfortunately, reading and comprehending enormous amounts of district information is often required to adequately prepare for discussion and well informed fact based responsible decisions.  An unfortunate and common result of not doing this is a director who votes on advice and/or the desire of others.

Whether or not the presence of such “hidden disabilities” (as Ross referenced) should be disclosed to the voting pubic by those seeking election to a public agency director position is something I am neither qualified or inclined to address right now.   Suffice it to say it would appear to be a personal decision for  the individual candidate based on their self confidence in ability to responsibly discharge the duties of that position on behalf of the public.  This obviously assumes the honest motivation for serving the public and not themselves.

Unfortunately, as discussed in some of the information on the subject, reading and comprehension difficulties are too often incorrectly, and unfairly, interpreted by others as indicating laziness or apathy for the work.  Sensitive subject, diverse opinions, we have all likely experienced this on some level,  enough said.

I really liked the below display that was outside the Mariposa County Board Room near the exit (maybe it is still there) which illustrates the amazing contributions by those with challenges.    Old post photo: 

Diversity is good.  Sure would be a boring world if we were all the same huh? Reminds me, ever see that commercial, I think it is about estate planning or something, where it involved a lady making clones (copies) of herself in order to complete a lot of demanding work yet their private interests outside of work varied and subsequently required special financial retirement arrangements – the point of the advertisement?  Anyway, every time I catch myself wishing I could clone four more “me” to get more work done around here I realize even if I could, it would likely result in a five way argument with nothing getting done at all!   LOL!

Regardless of the reasons for any ADA based requested accommodations (which again are fine) the actual reason for that resignation appears to be quite different than concern over committing insurance fraud by being an elected official, but you can decide that for yourself.

REFER TIME LINE: Mar 29 2008, NEW  “ROSS RESIGNATION EXCUSE” TWO+ YEARS LATER 

OK, here are the ROSS January 4th, 2006 communications which do help explain some contradictory information.

 

My best to you and yours, Lew

 

My best to you and yours, Lew <yawn>

PLEASE ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE YOU TO

YOUR

LAKE DON PEDRO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT BOARD OF

My best to you and yours, Lew

Above introduction inserted from original page:  UPDATE FOR MARCH 21 2016 LDPCSD BOARD MEETING

Apparently someone caught a procedural error in the first agenda (#5 DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM f: Consideration of agreement with Kampa Community Solutions, LLC for the position of General Manager) issued March 16th for the LDPCSD Meeting on Monday, March 21^st, 2016.

The new “revised agenda published on March 18^th” corrected the previous agenda plan of immediately promoting PETE KAMPA’s “KAMPA COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS, LLC for “the position of General Manager” without the district Board of Directors having first performed a “public Employee Performance Evaluation – General Manager”.

I believe it a pretty well established process that an organization is supposed to complete a performance evaluation prior to promoting an interim GM to full General Manager status. 

(Technically PETE KAMPA and the Board of Directors have OBVIOUSLY been using the unqualified General Manager title for quite some time in press releases and District correspondence anyway.) 

PLEASE REFER TO HOW PETE KAMPA REFERS TO HIS POSITION WHEN INTRODUCING HIMSELF TO THE MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT IMMEDIATELY AFTER APPOINTMENT AS THE INTERIM GM:

KAMPA INTRO 411 TO MID

(Naturally there was MUTUAL AWARENESS from the first KAMPA LDPCSD employment tour)

You would think such a professional special district management company as KAMPA COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS LLC would know these general manager promotion procedures.  Of course they do!  But such procedural details only impede progress on the real reasons PETE KAMPA/KAMPA COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS LLC was hired (and retained) by the Board of Directors:

• to begin providing water service to properties previously prohibited due to being outside the legal Place of Use under the water license under which the LDPCSD operates.
• new ground wells had to be constructed with public funds and grant money.
• the new wells would be advertised as being necessary for existing water consuming customers during emergency drought conditions.
• in actuality the wells were always planned and intended to be  used as the “alternate source of water” required to provide many outside legal area properties with water.
• the plan would require continued public funding of this special benefit of ground water substitution program by the 99% of legally entitled Merced River water users.

Such activity by our Board of Directors and their chosen GM is even more outrageous when you consider there was no legitimate legal duty or obligation to provide this special benefit to outside POU properties.  Look at the DISTRICT FORMATION DOCUMENTS.

HASTE MISTAKES?

Does PETE KAMPA, his KAMPA COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS LLC management company,  and his “Board majority” of appointed Directors appear to be in too much of a hurry when considering such mistakes, revisions, corrections, sudden “course changes”, retroactive approval of past activities, and the limiting of district information previously furnished to the public?

(Can you imagine the directors on the current board discussing this likely KAMPA prepared promotion in Closed Session?  “Oh golly gee – KAMPA COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS has done such a fantastic job FOR US in setting up even further DISTRICT WATER SERVICE EXPANSION UTILIZING GROUND WATER SUBSTITUTION TO CIRCUMVENT THE PLACE OF USE  RESTRICTIONS IN WATER LICENSE 11395 TO BE PAID FOR BY ALL CUSTOMERS – this COMPANY has certainly earned the position as general manager” or, “We’re in for a dime, so we’re in for a dollar” (More accurately “In for a dollar – in for millions of dollars so we had better stick with our original plan –why change horses in the middle of a stream?”)   lol   Whatever.  They do as they please.

WHY A COMPANY AND NOT A TRADITIONAL “REAL PERSON” AS GM?

Corporations and limited liability companies under the law are treated as individuals – actually having legal rights that recognize them as such.  Someone might then reasonably inquire,

“Why would the LDPCSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS hire a company as the General Manager rather than the president of that company, in this case the corporation’s namesake, PETE KAMPA?”

This is a very good question which addresses the primary motive for PETE KAMPA’S creating a “Limited Liability Company” in the first place.  The business name designation is the actual answer: 

“REDUCED LIABILITY EXPOSURE for actions that could result in law suits for causing harm to the district and/or its customers.

(CORRECTION:  Actually anyone harmed.)

[Directors on a board also traditionally have a similar “cloak of protection” from lawsuits unless evidence exists of intentional wrongful behavior beyond the simple “error and omissions” insurance coverage like when individual members conspire to commit theft, fraud, etc. …]

Information on LLCs from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability

_________________________

“A Limited Liability Company (LLC) is a hybrid business entity having certain characteristics of both a corporation and a partnership or sole proprietorship (depending on how many owners there are). An LLC, although a business entity, is a type of unincorporated association and is not a corporation. The primary characteristic an LLC shares with a corporation is limited liability, and the primary characteristic it shares with a partnership is the availability of pass-through income taxation. It is often more flexible than a corporation, and it is well-suited for companies with a single owner.”

“In the absence of express statutory guidance, most American courts have held that LLC members are subject to the same common law alter ego piercing theories as corporate shareholders. However, it is more difficult to pierce the LLC veil because LLCs do not have many formalities to maintain. So long as the LLC and the members do not commingle funds, it would be difficult to pierce this veil.^{[citation needed]} Membership interests in LLCs and partnership interests are also afforded a significant level of protection through the charging order mechanism. The charging order limits the creditor of a debtor-partner or a debtor-member to the debtor’s share of distributions, without conferring on the creditor any voting or management rights.^{[citation needed]} Limited liability company members may, in certain circumstances, also incur a personal liability in cases where distributions to members render the LLC insolvent.^[4]”

“Limited liability is where a person’s financial liability is limited to a fixed sum, most commonly the value of a person’s investment in a company or partnership. If a company with limited liability is sued, then the [claimant]]s are suing the company, not its owners or investors. A shareholder in a limited company is not personally liable for any of the debts of the company, other than for the value of their investment in that company. This usually takes the form of that person’s dividends in the company being zero, since the company has no profits to allocate. The same is true for the members of a limited liability partnership and the limited partners in a limited partnership.^[1] By contrast, sole proprietors and partners in general partnerships are each liable for all the debts of the business (unlimited liability).”

“Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders. Usually a corporation is treated as a separate legal person, which is solely responsible for the debts it incurs and the sole beneficiary of the credit it is owed. Common law countries usually uphold this principle of separate personhood, but in exceptional situations may “pierce” or “lift” the corporate veil.

A simple example would be where a businessman has left his job as a director and has signed a contract to not compete with the company he has just left for a period of time. If he sets up a company which competed with his former company, technically it would be the company and not the person competing. But it is likely a court would say that the new company was just a “sham”, a “cover” or some other phrase,^[1] and would still allow the old company to sue the man for breach of contract. A court would look beyond the legal fiction to the reality of the situation.

Despite the terminology used which makes it appear as though a shareholder’s limited liability emanates from the view that a corporation is a separate legal entity, the reality is that the entity status of corporations has almost nothing to do with shareholder limited liability.^[2] For example, English law conferred entity status on corporations long before shareholders were afforded limited liability. Similarly, the Revised Uniform Partnership Act confers entity status on partnerships, but also provides that partners are individually liable for all partnership obligations. Therefore, this shareholder limited liability emanates mainly from statute.^[2]”

_________________________

WOW!

There is so much legal information to absorb and understand concerning this LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY stuff, how can a regular customer possibly comprehend what is actually happening?

Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a short descriptive sentence or something explaining this complex situation?

Here is something that might help –

A quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln which in my mind sums up the above information as well as the current “behind the scene activities” taking place within our LAKE DON PEDRO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT management:

“Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow”.

http://www.ratical.org/corporations/Lincoln.html

Basically, a lack of individual accountability for wrongful actions.  This was a lesson most of us were taught as children.

Isn’t this “Public Service” stuff interesting?

 

My best to you and yours, Lew

The concept of “water banking” popped into my head yesterday morning while showering.  Following the routine capture of “warm up water” in a five gallon bucket by means of the bath tub faucet, I turned on the shower and started another drought inspired ritual: the morning race to save time and water.  During the rinse segment of the morning’s competition I happened to catch a glimpse of sudsy water disappearing into the drain and for some reason flashed on Friday’s unbelievable amount of rain runoff washing down the hill – sure wish I could have captured and saved more for later use.

H2O BANKING?

Water banking, familiar with that?  The water regulator’s system of saving/withholding specific amounts of water in one location so as to permit the legal transfer and use in a different geographical area?   Ever hear, see or somehow experience something that suddenly made other related stuff make perfect sense?  In this case, “perfect cents”?  Lol This is hard to explain.  The “banking” of water is an excellent analogy to the banking in financial institutions with which we most often associate the term “banking”.  Just replace the word money with water.  Money management – water management.   Money deficit – water deficit (drought).   Money credit – water credits.  Money loss – water loss.

We all recognize the concept of money right?  You know, dollars, cash, folding stuff, coin, bucks, bones, bread, dough, jack, dead presidents, Benjamins, and many other slang expressions for our legal currency.

MONEY or  H2O ?

Seems at first like a simple matter of just substituting different units of measurement for a different concept of value, in this case, a natural resource.  Like other things of value in this world (which obviously includes life forms such as humans) natural resources are often exploited by some humans for the sake of monetary profit and/or power over others.  Unfortunately, when such exploitation is accomplished in violation of clear legal restrictions it usually also involves significant waste and complete defeat of the intended beneficial uses by those entitled to its use through regulation.   I believe this is true whether with money or water.

$$$ H2O

True a dollar may have a fluctuating market value and a gallon is a gallon.  It is a volume measurement that doesn’t actually change, however, doesn’t even a gallon of water also become “more valuable” during drought?  I realize nothing is a perfect representation of something else (otherwise there wouldn’t be two different things right?), but there are a lot of similarities between “BREAD” and “WATER”.   (That’s how we live and survive right?  Bread and water?  Lol)

Dollars in US currency.  US Gallons in water.   A single dollar, or a $5, $10, $20, $50, $100.  Hundreds, Thousands, Millions, Billions, Trillions of dollars in currency.  How about a bitter dose of reality this Sunday morning?  http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Water in US measurement: Gallon = .13 CF; CF or cubic foot = 7.48 gallons; CCF – Centum Cubic Foot (one hundred times 1 CCF) = 748 gallons; one acre foot = 43,560 CF = 325,861 gallons; one CF per second = 646,317 gallons per day, etc.

SIDE NOTE:  Ever cross a bridge over a river/stream and notice a structure or some equipment near the flowing water?  Water regulation begins with understanding how much water is actually flowing from a watershed.  Often automated river/stream gage stations report to an integrated system of water release and retention operations by dams and reservoirs that are controlled by government approved facilities.

Check out the Merced River flow the other night just before midnight: (this real time reporting will obviously change…but I was referring to the 2500 cfs flow which should be viewable for a while):   http://www.merced-river.com/merced-flows.htm

Here is some other material on this water flow measuring: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/measureflow.html

 

GOVERNMENT REGULATES MONEY AND WATER

State and Federal Government regulates monetary currency flow through a number of public and private financial institutions.   Banks and credit unions count, monitor, bank, transfer, and loan dollars.  They are also concerned with issues of fraud, money laundering, criminal usury, funding of terrorism, etc.

Water is regulated on the federal level by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife, etc. while California organizations such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Water Resources, and the State Water Resources Control Board, etc. regulate water on the state level.  From what I have read it seems like the State Water Resources Control Board, or the SWRCB, controls the “who, what, where, when and why” aspects of water use in the state.

This water regulation is an extremely complex subject especially with the numerous overlapping government jurisdictions and competing perspectives of maximum beneficial use under the California Constitution.

ANYWAY, it sure appears incorrect information was intentionally furnished, and later used by both the community services district and the respective counties of Tuolumne and Mariposa, to greatly expand the district service boundary through LAFCo annexations to the district.  This incorrect information was subsequently used by a variety of government agencies and departments for a host of  purposes including taxation.   This “district expansion” was based on LAFCo representations that even more service connections would be installed outside the clear legal boundary.  This was facilitated by actively concealing the fact Merced River water pumped under L11395 (MIDs license under which the district operates) COULD NOT be delivered to outside license permitted properties.

Revealing and understanding that fact would have been much more honest, accurate and probably would have prevented decades of unnecessary community turmoil.   (Who knows?  Maybe even our Administration Office would not have been destroyed by arson on February 27th, 2012?) 

What are the most important aspects of this DISINGENUOUS FACADE OF A MASSIVE WATER EMPIRE IN THE MIDDLE OF DROUGHT PRONE SIERRA NEVADA FOOTHILLS to the Merced River water entitled 3,128 +/- legal customers in the Lake Don Pedro Owners Association?

• All expansion must be supported with extremely expensive and traditionally unreliable ground water wells – (new wells advertised as emergency water source for existing customers)
• The additional costs associated with this ground water substitution program have been, and are proposed to continue to be, paid for by the 99% of legal users, and
• The District had/has no duty or obligation to provide an alternate source of water to properties outside the surface water treatment plant operating license.              

Such a decision to expand water service based on expensive and unreliable ground water wells to properties otherwise not entitled should have been based on an affirmative vote of every single property owner who had the legal right to Merced River water under L11395 and had paid money to this district for that right since 1980!

$

EVERY SINGLE PROPERTY OWNER – not just local residents.

The District was well aware of its service limitations from the very beginning of its existence in August of 1980.  The first directors on the board and “in charge of this brand new district” however, did not uniformly enforce regulations.  In all fairness, I cannot possibly imagine the horrible pressure placed on these directors to expand service to other nearby properties.

Many of these “outside permitted area” properties, if not all, were included in the expanded district service boundary based on repeated verbal assurances from an inherited General Manager of Sierra Highlands Water Company.

Check out the maps for yourself:

JUNE 15 1978 MID MAP SHOWS SIERRA HIGHLANDS WATER COMPANY BOUNDARIES

 

It should be noted that this GM was also a later employee of a multi-million dollar land development/mortgage corporation that was also aggressively pushing for additional service connections outside the MID POU in addition to other “special considerations” regarding water matters.  (Including refusal to pay substantial overdue water bills and negotiating reduced “settlements”).

Back to the dollar & water banking comparison – (Need to post and get outside to do some work!)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

If a group of people who desperately wanted money constructed their own secret entry into a bank vault (with the assistance of a co-operative bank president)  would you as a legitimate customer of that bank consider that surreptitious vault entry (even if completely paid for by the group wanting more money) credible and/or sufficient evidence that the group seeking money was entitled to your bones?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

My best to you and yours, Lew

[ie, Juxtaposing the district’s position that the physical presence of a service connection is evidence of a right to water service with an illegal tunnel into a bank vault not being evidence of a right to another person’s money.]

PLEASE CHECK ABOVE LINKS FOR FREQUENT CHANGES – 🙂