DID GM PETE KAMPA SIMPLY LIE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ONCE AGAIN?

Reading Time: 5 minutes

Who knows? But on March 23, 2019 at 1943 hours I sent a request to the LDPCSD for Public Information with a copy of that request sent simultaneously to another address to prove it was actually sent. I requested this information because board room meeting statements by current General Manager/Treasurer PETER J. KAMPA confirmed such correspondence existed – that he had emailed officials at the SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board) many times.

Remember the statements by members of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS when it was suggested that Kampa contact the SWRCB to find out what the delay was on the Merced Irrigation District Water License 11395 Place of Use investigation regarding the FAKE POU MAP KAMPA AND HIS BOARD HAD PRODUCED to FINALLY ANSWER the MERCED RIVER WATER USE question for the the Lake Don Pedro area “ONCE AND FOR ALL”?

(Still have difficulty understanding how the LDPCSD Board of Directors could seriously believe they had the power and authority to produce a map that would supersede the legitimate WL11395 POU Map on file with the SWRCB as to where Merced River water could legally be diverted and consumed.)

HERE IS THE REQUEST I SENT THE LDPCSD OFFICE:

“During the March 18, 2019 LDPCSD monthly board meeting directors questioned current GM – TREASURER PETER KAMPA about the status of the NOTICE OF VIOLATION by the SWRCB (regarding the submitted POU MAP  Pete Kampa had produced through another CSDA member/affiliate CAD COMPANY in MODESTO, CA). Kampa stated he did not know.   VP Hankemeier asked if the district could send a letter to the state asking why we had not heard anything yet?   KAMPA stated he sends them emails all the time.  This response occurred at approximately 52’47” into the meeting.  This is a formal public information request for all those emails GM KAMPA stated he has sent to the SWRCB in regards to the water license 11395 map issue which apparently continues unresolved as of yet.  Please notify when copies of these emails are ready for payment and pickup. Thank you, Lew Richardson LDPCSD Customer for almost 30 years and former LDPCSD 4 year term Director.”

OFFICE RESPONSE ON MARCH 25, 2018 @ 0939hrs:

Lew, Your request has been received  and is being processed.  Regards, Syndie Marchesiello Office Manager / Board Secretary

Who knows? Maybe Pete Kampa has indeed been sending many emails to “COVERT OPERATIVES” at the SWRCB? Perhaps that is how the attempted “quiet June 2018 closure” of an active NOTICE OF VIOLATION investigation almost occurred? And based on what? MORE FALSE INFORMATION BY PETER J KAMPA. After all, such communications surely are not legal and therefore would have to be “concealed from the public” – just like so much of “Pete Kampa’s special interest LDPCSD activities” taking place behind the scenes. Reason? His obvious devotion to prior (and highly suspicious) LAFCO ANNEXATIONS INTO THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES he set up 20 years earlier?

After a trip to the transfer station we stopped by the office just before lunch to pay the water bill and check on that PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST from last month.

Office Manager/Board Secretary Syndie Marchesiello advised she would check with the GM today. Who knows? Maybe there are some emails with information Kampa didn’t want to be public yet? Perhaps he just forgot considering his busy schedule with his other SPECIAL DISTRICT MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS? Maybe his duties as an almost 20 year DIRECTOR WITH THE CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION (CSDA) complicated his schedule and he just didn’t have the time to forward all those email communications with SWRCB officials?

Then again, maybe they just don’t exist, like the 15 emails he stated he had sent to Dollar General officials?

CLASSIC CHARACTERISTICS

OF THE DEMOCRAT,

PROGRESSIVE,

SOCIALIST LEFT

yeah?

Chronic excuses for failure to perform required duties; disinformation and concealment of truth; forcing an already victimized and ignored mandatory customer base to pay more for less service and quality of water while subsidizing an extremely expensive special benefit GROUNDWATER SUBSTITUTION PROGRAM for owners of LAFCO ANNEXED PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE WATER LICENSE Place of Use for Merced River water……, this and much more, ALL DUE TO A MULTI-DECADE PLAN OF INTENTIONAL, and very expensive, special interest management sabotage and misappropriation of a CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICT’S FUNDS AND RESOURCES – all hi-jacked to private third party land development/real estate special interests.

ANYWAY, as a “refresher”, below is a portion of the March 18th board discussion which illuminated another ASSERTED FACT by PETE KAMPA (that he had communicated with the SWRCB many times already – but felt any further communication “might make them mad”)

No shame at all.

WEEDS! WEEDS! WEEDS!

every where you look, eh? lol

My best to you and yours, Lew

PS: Who knows if this is the correct Government Code Section cited for the CLOSED SESSION on Monday (since previously questioned erroneous citations were NEVER EXPLAINED and only causally acknowledged), but this is what they’re using:

Government Code Section 54957:

Government Code – GOV

TITLE 5. LOCAL AGENCIES [50001 – 57550]

DIVISION 2. CITIES, COUNTIES, AND OTHER AGENCIES [53000 – 55821]

PART 1. POWERS AND DUTIES COMMON TO CITIES, COUNTIES, AND OTHER AGENCIES [53000 – 54999.7]

CHAPTER 9. Meetings [54950 – 54963]
54957.  

(a) This chapter shall not be construed to prevent the legislative body of a local agency from holding closed sessions with the Governor, Attorney General, district attorney, agency counsel, sheriff, or chief of police, or their respective deputies, or a security consultant or a security operations manager, on matters posing a threat to the security of public buildings, a threat to the security of essential public services, including water, drinking water, wastewater treatment, natural gas service, and electric service, or a threat to the public’s right of access to public services or public facilities.

(b) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), this chapter shall not be construed to prevent the legislative body of a local agency from holding closed sessions during a regular or special meeting to consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of a public employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against the employee by another person or employee unless the employee requests a public session.

(2) As a condition to holding a closed session on specific complaints or charges brought against an employee by another person or employee, the employee shall be given written notice of his or her right to have the complaints or charges heard in an open session rather than a closed session, which notice shall be delivered to the employee personally or by mail at least 24 hours before the time for holding the session. If notice is not given, any disciplinary or other action taken by the legislative body against the employee based on the specific complaints or charges in the closed session shall be null and void.

(3) The legislative body also may exclude from the public or closed meeting, during the examination of a witness, any or all other witnesses in the matter being investigated by the legislative body.

(4) For the purposes of this subdivision, the term “employee” shall include an officer or an independent contractor who functions as an officer or an employee but shall not include any elected official, member of a legislative body or other independent contractors. This subdivision shall not limit local officials’ ability to hold closed session meetings pursuant to Sections 1461, 32106, and 32155 of the Health and Safety Code or Sections 37606 and 37624.3 of the Government Code. Closed sessions held pursuant to this subdivision shall not include discussion or action on proposed compensation except for a reduction of compensation that results from the imposition of discipline.(Amended by Stats. 2013, Ch. 11, Sec. 1. (AB 246) Effective January 1, 2014.)

Categories: Uncategorized.