The following is an email response from Wes Barton to LAKE DON PEDRO CSD Board President Danny Johnson. Johnson had suggested at that last SPECIAL MEETING (Wednesday, January 17th, 2018) that Wes put his observations, comments and questions in writing and forward them to President Johnson. You will recall many of Mr. Barton’s questions have gone unanswered for over a year as documented in meeting recordings posted on this website.
“Around, around the agenda GO ROUND
As customers chase the GM
The GM stops and laughingly says
HA! We don’t have to answer!”
When General Manager/Board Treasurer Pete Kampa states he is confused about the legitimate WATER LICENSE 11395 PLACE OF USE RESTRICTIONS for Merced River water in the Lake Don Pedro area I become rather agitated because I have researched the matter extensively and the statement is just plain not truthful. PETE KAMPA has over twenty years experience with such water issues – notably including four years of “hands on” experience in setting up these OUTSIDE POU ANNEXATIONS to the Lake Don Pedro CSD which he knew twenty years ago would require GROUNDWATER SUBSTITUTION in the future and was the reason for his UNETHICAL APPOINTMENT RETURN to the LDPCSD in October 2014.
Kampa has laughingly dismissed this (reason for his return) as a wild conspiracy theory while simultaneously refusing to answer legitimate questions as to his activities since 2014 regarding the SPECIAL BENEFIT GROUNDWATER SUBSTITUTION PROGRAM for land developers outside the WL POU.
The plan was to DIVERT AND USE STATE AND FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS
(INTENDED TO DEVELOP GROUNDWATER WELLS FOR EMERGENCY DROUGHT USE FOR EXISTING CONSUMERS),
TO FURTHER EXPAND A SPECIAL BENEFIT GROUNDWATER SUBSTITUTION SERVICE FOR LAND DEVELOPERS OUTSIDE THE MERCED RIVER WATER PERMITTED PLACE OF USE.
{Like the “slumbering annexation” for a proposed 900 acre residential subdivision adjacent to the LDP subdivision that was LAFCO approved in 1995 but only acknowledged a few months before PETE KAMPA returned to the LDPCSD?}
The <MR WECs> of the Lake Don Pedro subdivision have essentially been forced to fund this SPECIAL GROUNDWATER SUBSTITUTION BENEFIT for decades.
[October 2017, lakedonpedro.org file photo: PETE KAMPA
using his newly acquired $35,000 DIGITAL MAPPING PROJECT (approved by the Board of Directors
despite public warnings of likely potential misuse by KAMPA)
TO CHANGE the STATE RECOGNIZED PLACE OF USE BOUNDARY
FOR MERCED RIVER WATER per WL11395]
However, the only confusion that appears to have existed, and still does, is why PETE KAMPA refused, and still refuses to acknowledge the clear and decades old legitimate 11395 water use restrictions while ONCE AGAIN ACTIVELY VIOLATING THEM – EVEN AFTER A NOTICE OF SIMILAR VIOLATIONS FROM THE STATE WATER BOARD in September of 2017!
(lakedonpedro.org file photo)
{OR IS THE LDPCSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS
KNOWINGLY ASSISTING PETE KAMPA WITH
THIS CONTINUING 3+ YEARS OF DECEPTION?}
As mentioned before, I am not much of a financial person and am quite satisfied when my bills are paid and the check book balances, however, there are some BASIC financial matters that do not require extensive education or experience to understand that something is very wrong and I believe Wes Barton has discovered something OUTRAGEOUSLY SIGNIFICANT to Kampa’s continued and UNWARRANTED COMPLAINTS against the USDA and his “stated” CONFUSION as to why the USDA as failed to reimburse the LDPCSD for it’s expenses.
Let’s start with a few basic definitions.
USDA: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
G/L : GENERAL LEDGER: the principal and controlling ledger of a business enterprise containing individual or controlling accounts for all assets, liabilities, net worth items, revenue, and expenses.
REIMBURSE:
1 : to pay back to someone : repay, reimburse travel expenses 2 : to make restoration or payment of an equivalent to reimburse him for his traveling expenses
FRAUD: 1 a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right/ was accused of credit card fraud/ : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick /automobile insurance frauds/ 2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor – He claimed to be a licensed psychologist, but he turned out to be a fraud. Also one who defrauds : cheat/ b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be/ The UFO picture was proved to be a fraud.
CONSPIRACY: a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal: the act of secretly planning to do something that is harmful or illegal
$ ? $ ? $ ? $ ? $ ? $ ? $ ? $
Danny,
Sorry for not replying to your request to explain my question concerning “request for money from USDA when
I didn’t believe we have paid the vendor thus how could CSD be reimbursed”. I waited until I had G/L to check
A couple of points that I was sure were not pertinent but wanted to verify. Secondly, I’ll stay away from most
Numbers, but can support all in detail (from CSD records).
Brief history and meeting (Jan 17, 2018) discussion:
GM Kampa (GM) indicated “confusion” as to why USDA had not paid apx $324k requested in Nov., 2017, after
Advising CSD Board final review/approval of funding was planned for 7/19/2017 (original req #1 form @$210k
Was presented to Board at that Time). [To my knowledge, no later info as to any reason to believe there was
Any delay in USDA approval; as well as GM continued the process and applicable communication for funding.]
Also during the July meeting, GM requested an additional funding to Kennedy Jenkins for $60k and that CSD
Would then owe KJ apx $70k, $59.9 for services not originally budgeted. From June 30, 2017 thru Dec 2017,
GM reports only $1129 spent (or accrued) per G/L on well projects.
12/14/2017 (Nov business), GM reported a “revised” USDA funding request #1 for $324.6k. This report
Appears to show the increased $114k ($324k-$210k) made up of old cost before June 30, 2017, of apx
$54k (nearly all NJ & sons and K J costs) and about $59k for KJ (dated Aug thru Nov 2017 include a noted
Cost of $1.7k for the “future”). GM booked this request as a billing and documented in the G/L & A/R.
Basis of my question, “why surprise no reimburse” or even “checks in the mail”:
If Grants “reimburse” only cash expenditures. CSD G/L shows apx $1k cost paid/accrued since June thru
Dec 2017. Revised Request #1 shows $59k spent since June 2017 but CSD G/L denies this expenditure.
GM requested $60k to be paid (budget) to KJ to obtain the reimbursement from USDA. Simply put,
I wouldn’t expect USDA to reimburse if I had not paid so why would USDA pay CSD if they hadn’t paid.
[Since cash, other checks and balances would probably catch G/L issues/errors on these transactions if paid.]
I don’t like “gotcha’s”, either. I reject that this is an unknowable to CSD, known only by me. However, if one
Wants to “tag” this as a “gotcha” then it must be obvious CSD’s leadership and management is in “deep
Do-do” and need to look close at their organization and selves at least as far as “financial controls”.
Wes Barton, Jan 24, 2018
e-mail: lw.wes.barton@gmail.com
ps don’t have Nellie’s e-mail, please forward
$ ? $ ? $ ? $ ? $ ? $ ? $ ? $
.
.
.
.
So what do you folks think?
My best to you and yours, Lew
