Opinion of the Tribune
The Tribune, posted on Dec 28, 2003Despite a number of studies by private individuals and governmental agencies that have shown the economically fragile in Los Osos - elderly on fixed incomes and young families - will get whacked financially by the community's proposed $92 million sewer project, the Los Osos Community Services District has decided to spend $318,595 for seven months of public relations work.
The contract is an extension of a 13-month $200,000 contract that was secured by Singleton & Associates, a San Luis Obispo public relations firm headed by Maria Singleton.
This kind of expense, one that comes from the pockets of Los Osos taxpayers, simply does not make sense when residents are looking down the barrel of having to pay an averaged monthly fee of $120 in bond/loan retirement and sewer operation and maintenance costs.
And, if that's not enough, those monthly hits will be above and beyond the estimated costs of between $2,000 and $4,000 for homeowners to decommission their septic tanks and have lateral hookups connect their residences to the sewer main.
However, in an effort to lessen the severity of the financial impact, the district doesn't cut back on its public relations expenses, it points to census data that says the median income for Los Osos is $56,000. The explicit meaning of trotting out that statistic is that Los Osos residents have enough money to make this project pencil out.
But the truth of the matter is that the $56,000 median income number represents ALL of Los Osos, including the high rent districts of Cabrillo Estates, west of Pecho Road and east of South Bay Boulevard. But the residents in these neighborhoods aren't in the sewer assessment district. Although they will be paying a monthly fee as part of a septic tank maintenance district - which means their tanks will be surveyed and pumped on a scheduled basis - it's a fraction of what the lower-income assessment district residents will be paying.
That skewed statistic should be put to rest and the district would do well to be perfectly honest with the residents of Los Osos as to how heavily the sewer costs will impact them and the community as a whole. A good place to have started that frank discussion was 13 months ago when the district hired Singleton & Associates.
What kind of bang for its buck has the community been getting from the district's public relations firm? Spiffy quarterly publications called Bear Pride on heavy stock paper filled with graphics and color. Unfortunately, all the whistles and bells haven't served their desired purpose: A growing segment of the community seems to have ever more questions about the changing nature of the sewer. The question arises: Have relations between the district and public been served? Apparently not.
What kind of public relations can the community expect for its $318,595 over the next seven months? Under the heading "Outreach," the district plans to spend $138,520 on such activities as pre-construction information workshops ($33,810); a project cost workshop and mailer ($52,460); and "special assistance as required" to the district's general manager, Bruce Buel, of up to $35,000.
On their face, these numbers are laughable from the standpoint of being realistic for this area and services rendered (what is being offered at these workshops that should cost so much money?) However, when the cost of the services in question are to be borne on the backs of a middle-income community of young families and elderly, they're tragic.
The Los Osos Community Services District should have taken the bulk of the contract's cost and put it into its low-income assistance fund - which currently contains about $6,000 - and used it for helping the economically fragile with the costs of sewer hookups when the time comes.
It should have then taken whatever was left over and hired a secretary to take dictation from the district's general manager and the project's design manager on issues affecting the public. That information should then have then been sent to homeowners. No frills, no bells, no whistles.
Perhaps the first whittling from the Singleton contract could be the $6,000 budgeted for "media relations." Why? When Singleton was contacted about her contract by The Tribune, she said she couldn't comment and referred questions about it to district officials.
Now that's bang for your buck.
Sewer PR Causes Concern
Some Los Osos Residents Upset Over Cost of Consultant's Contract
by David Sneed, The Tribune, posted on Mon, Dec. 22, 2003LOS OSOS - An effort to clear up confusion and misinformation surrounding the Los Osos sewer project may have backfired. Some Los Osos residents and business people are upset by a contract approved in November by the district Board of Directors to pay $318,595 for seven months of public relations work.
The contract went to Maria Singleton, a San Luis Obispo-based consultant. The seven-month contract takes the district to July, when ground is scheduled to be broken on the project's controversial sewage treatment plant located in the center of town. This contract is an extension of Singleton's prior agreement of more than $200,000. That 13-month contract expired Nov. 30.
Critics think the current contract's $318,000 price tag is excessive. They say the contract costs $60 per household in the area that will be served by the new sewage treatment and collection system.
"Sixty dollars means a lot to people in this town," said Richard Margetson, a Los Osos businessman and a member of Concerned Citizens of Los Osos, a group that also opposes the treatment plant's downtown location. "We don't need a Beverly Hills project; we need a project on a Los Osos budget." Singleton said she could not comment on the contract and referred questions about it to district officials.
The Singleton contract was approved unanimously by the district board on Nov. 6. Director Gordon Hensley said the board is satisfied with Singleton's work, and directors think they are getting their money's worth from her. "The work product we've seen from her is clear," he said. "We get an excellent return from her."
The contract calls for Singleton to perform seven tasks, ranging from media relations to editing of sewer-related content for the district's quarterly Bear Pride newsletter. Singleton charges $100 an hour for her services. The contract also calls for her writers and other assistants to be paid at separate rates ranging from $30 an hour to $80 an hour.
The biggest part of the contract, at $138,520, is for community outreach leading up to the start of construction. This includes producing informational mailers and planning community workshops. The contract also contains several less-well-defined items including $35,000 for "special assistance to the general manager as required" and an unspecified amount under the community outreach budget to plan a groundbreaking ceremony scheduled on July 4.
Critics of the contract think the district's mailers and other materials are too elaborate and could be produced less expensively. "Everything that comes out is on parchment paper with four colors and artwork," Margetson said. Board members believe the mailers and other materials are needed in order to inform the community about the details of the highly controversial project.
At $92 million, the sewer system is expected to be one of the most expensive infrastructure projects in county history. In addition to building a new sewage treatment plant, the project requires 37 miles of collection pipes to be laid down streets in the town and the decommissioning of several thousand home septic systems. State water officials say the sewer system is necessary because the septic tanks are polluting underground aquifers and Morro Bay.
Debate in the community has shifted from whether the sewer is necessary to the location of the treatment plant. The location of the plant in the heart of the community is unpopular. "Because the issue has become so contentious we felt we had to invest in getting the message clear and getting the community fully informed," Hensley said. When the current contract expires, the district directors will decide whether to award more contracts to Singleton to cover public relations for the construction phase of the project or open the contract up to bidding.
You can speak, but politicians may not listen
by Silas Lyons, The Tribune, posted on Sun, Dec. 21, 2003PASO ROBLES - As the Paso Robles Planning Commission considered the city's future last week, residents lined up behind a small speaker's podium.
For the most part, their comments were intelligent, reasonable and researched. Each did his or her darndest to persuade the five men sitting at the head of the room that Paso Robles should or should not clamp a lid on growth.
Then things got curious.
Commission chair Ron Johnson, looking slightly sheepish, pulled out a sheaf of notes.
"I'd like to read a prepared statement," he announced.
When he was done, it was Commissioner Ed Steinbeck's turn. Steinbeck, too, had a prepared statement to read.
For a minute, I thought I'd mistakenly wandered into a press conference. But even the press usually gets better treatment than this. They at least get to ask questions after the statement is read.
What exactly is the point of public comment if nobody's listening? Why did those 18 people bother to show up and give their opinion?
Lately, there's been a lot of talk about Los Osos, where according to the protest signs residents really "want our three minutes!" to address the board of the Community Services District.
And Board of Supervisors Chairman Mike Ryan got an earful earlier this year when he jerked around the time for public comment just because it was getting inconvenient for him and other supes.
In a democracy, there are certain things you do (or don't do). The law essentially requires you to provide the public with a time slot, and good sense dictates that you don't just move that time around in some procedural shell game.
In both of these cases, good sense, or good laws, eventually prevailed. The supes moved public comment to the top of their agenda, and Los Osos CSD Chairwoman Rosemary Bowker promised residents their full three minutes to speak.
But let's go back to Paso Robles for a minute, because it exposes a more difficult problem.
The law may require that local politicians give you a chance to speak. But it doesn't require them to listen.
It's not always as obvious as planning commissioners reading a statement they had already written before the first citizen started talking.
More often, the insult is subtle -- decision-makers reading an agenda, whispering to colleagues or (I've seen this ) cat-napping during public comment.
The message isn't subtle.
These officials, elected or appointed, want you to know that you might as well be singing in your shower. They just don't care what you have to say.
Fortunately, the law allows you another way to be heard, and with certainty: You still can vote -- preferably for people who listen, and who demand that those they appoint to commissions do the same.
The 3-minute speech returns
One minute rule gives way as wider limit is restored after civil protest
by Laurie Phillips, The Tribune, posted on Fri, Dec. 19, 2003LOS OSOS - All the 100 or so people at the Los Osos Community Services District board meeting Thursday wanted was their full three minutes to speak their minds. This week, everyone got the chance.
The crowd gathered to protest a move two weeks ago when, at the last meeting of the board, Chairwoman Rosemary Bowker cut public comment back to one minute from three after some in the audience already had spoken. Angry over the cut, many in that crowd lashed out verbally. In response, Bowker ordered the entire audience removed. The removal apparently was legal, although there is debate over whether the board was within its right to limit speaking time after some speakers received their full three minutes.
The crowd Thursday filled the South Bay Community Center. Many carried small signs reading: "We want our 3 minutes." But unlike the last board meeting, there was no tumult. Upon calling the meeting to order, Bowker announced public comment would be moved to the front of the meeting, before any scheduled items on the agenda. It was originally scheduled for the end, as it was two weeks ago. "You'll get your three minutes," she promised.
Over the next hour and a half, about 30 people spoke, most of them voicing opposition to the proposed community sewer plan. Some thanked the board for giving constituents what they said they were owed: a voice. "I'm here to thank you for restoring our free speech tonight," Los Osos resident George Taylor said. "It's been long overdue."
Two speakers called for the board members to step down. Two more read to the board members sections of their campaign promises and the board's mission statement. And another asked them to treat the audience the same every time, regardless of the number of people attending.
Julie Tacker with Concerned Citizens of Los Osos created the signs for people to hold. Before the meeting, she said she was encouraged by the turnout in response to the action two weeks prior, which left her feeling angry. "There are faces here I've never seen before," she said outside the center. After everyone interested in speaking had finished, Bowker addressed the crowd. "I want to thank you very much for coming this evening," she said. "I think you have shown remarkable patience in listening to each other, and I hope you keep coming back."
About two-thirds of the audience left during a brief recess. Their thoughts were mixed about whether they were heard. "They don't really listen," said Los Osos resident Bo Cooper. "They think communication is talking at us and giving us information, but I think communication is sharing information." Lifelong Los Osos resident Darwin Jensen said he was glad to see so many people in the audience. "It went good," he said. "We didn't get shut down. We're a vocal majority. We need to be represented more."
Tribune Editorial
Posted on Dec. 18, 2003Let's be very clear about one abiding principle of democracy: The people have a right to be heard by government, whether that voice is through First Amendment guarantees of free speech, free press or a petition redressing grievances.
Unfortunately, the people's right to be heard in Los Osos has been squelched by the Los Osos Community Services District twice now in the last four months. That's simply unacceptable behavior by a governing body.
There's little question that communication between a growing number of Los Osos residents and the CSD is at the breaking point over the never-ending sewer saga that's afflicted the town for almost 30 years. Both camps have shown poor form over the last couple years since the CSD was formed by the community's voters to take a sewer project forward. Lawsuits have been filed; recall efforts have been mounted; tempers have flared.
The main bone of contention between the district and residents is the proposed location of the sewer plant - an area virtually in the heart of the community that is adjacent to the town1s library, community center, park and Catholic church. The site was chosen when the sewer was designed as a ponding system and sold as "drop dead gorgeous."
That design died along the way, but the location remained the same, with the next design putting a traditional sewer plant underground. It was about this time that anxious murmurings could be heard among nearby residents. The final design now has the sewer plant above ground, shielded by a 17-foot wall.
Anxious murmurings intensified into pointed questions at CSD meetings: Why won't the CSD consider moving the project now that it's so changed? they demanded. Then, last August, CSD President Rose Bowker muzzled resident Cynthia Mulligan in the middle of her public comment about an evil queen who oppressed her village.
First Amendment expert Terry Franke said at the time that 3 agencies can't say how you speak or limit the manner in which you express a point of view. They can't limit the use of satire or metaphors as long as the speaker is talking about the agency or what the agency does.
We noted at the time that the CSD was wrong in silencing Mulligan and hoped that the district board had learned from the experience. Well, it hasn't.
Two weeks ago, Bowker and the board's counsel once again stomped on the public's right to address a governing body. As the meeting ran late, Bowker decided that remaining speakers would be limited to one minute instead of three to give their public input - a violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, according to attorney Tom Newton, who is the First Amendment watchdog for the California Newspaper Publishers Association.
When Bowker announced her one-minute limit, those waiting to speak protested, and Bowker ordered the entire audience removed from the meeting. Needless to say, this is the antithesis of what the voters of Los Osos bargained for when they created the CSD.
To help Bowker, the board and board counsel understand their obligation to the public, we offer this passage from the Brown Act: "Public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. ... The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people ... do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."
In other words, regardless of how the message is presented, the people have the right to be heard. If the CSD Board of Directors doesn't understand that basic principle of democracy, as guaranteed by the First Amendment and the state Brown Act, then it should stand down and let others take its place who will be better stewards of such a covenant.
Public ousted at Los Osos open meeting
CSD president orders deputy to clear meeting during comment time
by Lindsay Christians, The Tribune, posted on Dec 6, 2003LOS OSOS - In a rare, but apparently legal, move, the head of the Los Osos Community Services District Board ordered the entire audience removed from a public meeting late Thursday.
But the decision by Chairwoman Rosemarie Bowker to limit public comments to one minute, which prompted the outburst, may have violated the state Brown Act, which regulates public access at government meetings.
It's the first time in recent memory that a board chair has invoked the disruption clause in the state's open meeting law.
"Wow," said attorney Tom Newton, who tracks First Amendment issues for the California Newspaper Publishers Association. "In my 14 years of studying the Brown Act, I've never been asked about this. I've never heard of the disruption clause coming up."
Newton said the Brown Act allows an official to remove people causing a disturbance and, if that is insufficient, to remove the entire audience except for media.
However, Newton questioned Bowker's ability to limit speaker comment time after some had already had three minutes to address the board.
"They can't do that. That's discrimination against some members of the public," he said.
Los Osos resident Keith Sullivan agrees.
When the board opened public comment for items not on the agenda -- most popular being the community's controversial sewer project -- several citizens formed a line to speak.
"We were trying to make the process more efficient," Sullivan said, noting that only two people spoke for three minutes before Bowker lowered the limit.
Bowker did not return repeated phone calls Friday.
Jerri Walsh and George Taylor, who oppose the sewer site, had joined with several neighbors to read a letter sequentially using their shortened speaking time.
As Taylor finished speaking, Bowker asked that he give her his materials. When he refused and handed the letter to his wife, the members of the board called a break.
It was during the break, Sullivan said, that the audience was most disruptive.
"Then she banged her gavel and told the sheriff's deputy to clear the room," Taylor said. "Get everybody out except those who were staff. We all were ushered out of the room and told we would be called in one at a time."
Mike Seitz, the district's attorney, advised Bowker on the Brown Act during the meeting.
"The president can exercise her authority when the situation deteriorates to the point where no business can be conducted," Seitz said. "It was not directed to any specific group or individual."
Seitz said Bowker was within her authority to reduce speaking time, as board members had been meeting for nearly seven hours.
"I don't care if they have to be there 'til two in the morning if the public's only given three minutes twice a month," said Richard Margetson, a Los Osos business owner. "If they don't want to sit there, then they should resign their positions."
Members of Concerned Citizens of Los Osos, which opposes the proposed sewer site and distributes "Move the Sewer" signs, will meet Monday to determine a course of action. This includes compiling complaints to present at the next meeting.
"We're trying to be factual and honest," Sullivan said. "We are the opposition, and that's democracy. We have a right to speak what we feel even if they don't agree with us."
Group members spoke with an attorney based in San Francisco and were told they had a case, though the group does not plan to take legal action.
The meeting marks the second time this year that Bowker's interpretation of the open meeting law has been questioned.
In August, Bowker ordered board critic Cynthia Mulligan to stop reading a metaphoric tale that compared Los Osos to a village oppressed by an evil queen expanding her kingdom.
Terry Franke, general counsel of the California First Amendment Coalition, called that action illegal.
"Agencies can't say how you speak or limit the manner in which you express a point of view," Franke said at the time. "They can't limit the use of satire or metaphors as long as the speaker is talking about the agency or what the agency does."
Sewer foes take case to state body
No date set for hearing before Coastal Commission
by Laurie Phillips, The Tribune, posted on Nov 22, 2003LOS OSOS - Opponents to the proposal to install a $92 million sewer system and sewage treatment plant in Los Osos have appealed the project to the state Coastal Commission.
The county Board of Supervisors approved the project Oct. 21. A commission hearing date has not yet been set for the appeal.
Julie Tacker of Concerned Citizens of Los Osos hand-delivered two appeals -- hers and another from Al Barrow of Citizens for an Affordable Safe Environment -- to the commission's Santa Cruz offices Tuesday. Los Osos resident Dr. Pravin Bhuta also submitted an appeal last week. Tacker has asked that the commission hear the issue in March, when it plans to meet in Monterey.
If the commission upholds the sewer project, only lawsuits would bar construction, which is scheduled to begin in July. The project calls for 37 miles of sewage collection pipes to be laid and a treatment plant to be built at Los Osos Valley Road and Palisades Avenue. Treated water would be returned to underground aquifers where the community gets its drinking water.
The appeal Tacker submitted mainly objects to the project's proposed location downtown, saying that an alternate location east of town near the cemetery would be more environmentally feasible.
The Coastal Commission rejected that site because it would require sewage lines to be placed across creeks.
"It's a sewer plant, it's a factory, it's industrial," said Tacker, a 33-year Los Osos resident. "And this is a neighborhood where all of our services are located."
State water officials have been pushing for a sewer system in Los Osos for decades because the community's 6,000 septic tanks do not work properly due to high groundwater levels. The tanks are contaminating underground aquifers and the Morro Bay estuary with nitrates and bacteria.
The town's residents have debated and litigated for decades over the project because of its high cost. The county had a plan in place to install the sewer system, but the Coastal Commission halted it in 1998 to allow the town to form its own community services district.
Since then, the commission has worked with the new district and approved its request to rezone the treatment plant site in August of last year over similar objections.
Correction: * A story published Oct. 22 on Page A1, and another published
Saturday, November 22 on Page B1, incorrectly stated that the state Coastal Commission
has rejected alternative sites for the Los Osos sewer plant because they
would require sewage lines to cross creeks. The information was based on
comments made by county Supervisor Shirley Bianchi. Commission staffers say
the panel has never rejected a site for the Los Osos plant for that reason,
though they try to discourage creek crossings whenever possible.
Nearly 100 show to protest site of sewer plant
Critics blast services district's plan to build it in heart of town
by Neil Farrell, Sun Bulletin, posted on Sept 10, 2003
"I think the idea of having a sewer in the middle of town, next to the library and across from the community center stinks."That statement by Los Osos resident Michelle Avant summed up a contentious meeting of the Los Osos Community Services District board.
Nearly 100 people packed the South Bay Community Center on Thursday, Sept. 4 to tell the services district board that they didn't want the proposed sewer plant built on vacant land along Los Osos Valley Road.
That site, on the so-called Tri-W property, is bordered by Los Osos Valley, Palisades and Ravenna avenues, and is a short distance inland from the Sweet Springs Nature Preserve and the Morro Bay National Estuary.
The district is trying to build a $91 million community sewer that would collect sewage from roughly 4,700 residences and businesses, treat it and then inject it into the ground at several sites scattered around town.
Complaints were heard from representatives from the People Helping People organization, the Chamber of Commerce, business owners, retirees and local parents.
All said they wanted the plant moved.
Board President Rosemary Bowker tried to get a handle on the crowd.
She told the crowd to not repetitiously ask that the proposed sewer plant be moved to the outskirts of town.
A show of hands indicated at least 67 people didn't want to talk about anything else.
Nearly everyone who raised their hand got in line to speak.
Comments ran for more than two hours.
Toby Sacher, an outspoken critic of the sewer project and the district board, said Bowker was acting more like a master than a servant of the people.
Sacher demanded that Bowker do her duty and listen to the people or resign.
Sacher and others who spoke said that the approval of a tax in June 2001 to help finance the sewer didn't mean the sewer plant's location was locked in.
Bowker responded by asking the district's legal counsel, Jon Seitz, to recount the public education efforts that were done prior to the vote.
Bowker tried to explain that the board was upholding the state constitution with its project, which she said was mandated by the state under the Porter-Cologne Act.
The 1970 law is the state's primary statute governing water quality and water pollution issues.
"The board may not have the authority to do what you ask us to do," said Bowker.
That brought angry shouts of "No" from the back of the room and Sacher jumped to the podium and started shouting at Bowker, who called an immediate break.
She threatened to clear the room if people didn't behave themselves.
That seemed to cool tempers down a bit.
But it didn't change the desire of residents who wanted to vote on moving the sewer out of town.
Local bakery owner Gary Carlock said he was not opposed to a sewer, but wanted it moved.
Linde Owen said she didn't want to be driving friends out to Montaña de Oro State Park in five years and have to explain why there was a sewer plant in the middle of town.
"The logical thing is to put it to a vote of the people," Owen said.
The board took no action on the sewer plant location, which was not on the meeting's agenda.
Bowker and Seitz Need to Respect the Constitution
If the Metaphor Fits
The Tribune, posted on Aug 19, 2003, Opinion of the TribuneThere once was an evil queen who oppressed the peasants of her village....
That was the essence of a metaphor that Los Osos resident Cynthia Mulligan tried to present to the Los Osos Community Services District Board of Directors Aug. 7.
Although that was the essence of Mulligan's metaphor - a fable based on CSD President Rose Bowker and the residents of Los Osos - she never got to finish her story in her allotted three minutes of public comment.
Bowker, on the advice of the board's legal counsel, Jon Seitz, told Mulligan to put a sock in it and take a seat.
When Mulligan balked at the demand, Bowker had Sheriff's Lt. Martin Basti escort Mulligan away from the microphone.
Then, in a turn-about-is-fair-play approach to public comment, Seitz silenced Annie Mueller and Celeste Royer from extolling the virtues of the CSD.
Later, Seitz said he muzzled Mulligan because her message wasn't clear and "the board should not be put in a position of trying to interpret the meaning of a public comment."
He dismissed Mueller and Royer on the grounds that they were "campaigning" for the district.
Seitz and Bowker were wrong in both cases.
The Tribune asked the opinion of First Amendment expert Terry Franke; his take is that "Agencies can't say how you speak or limit the manner in which you express a point of view. They can't limit the use of satire or metaphors as long as the speaker is talking about the agency or what the agency does."
In short, it's a matter of not being able to dictate how content is delivered.
If a person has a gripe with the Los Osos CSD and they want to express it as a Zen koan in the meter of "Mary Had A Little Lamb," then the board should be able to hold its water for the three minutes it takes for that person to do so.
In the long view, this incident is merely the tip of an underlying issue: Frustration with public policy makers is leading to a coarsening of public discourse, which in turn is leading to increasing antagonism between the public and elected bodies.
Some elected officials say this situation is a byproduct of members of the public playing to cable access cameras and programming.
Some public comment-prone individuals say it's because of increasing insensitivity to the public's needs by elected officials.
The root causes may be part of both, as well as acceptance of television violence, gangsta rap and a thousand other influences that pop culture leads us to believe is acceptable behavior.
The bottom line, though, is that a general lack of manners achieves mediocre results at best.
So, does talking metaphorically about an evil queen move your cause forward in a constructive manner or is it playing to the crowd?
Which is more important?
Making a solid point that can be used by an elected body, or venting?
Whichever, in the final analysis, the Los Osos CSD Board of Directors were wrong in muzzling public comment on the grounds of First Amendment freedoms of speech and right to petition government for redress of grievances reasons.
It's bad policy as well as being counterproductive for elected entities.
As First Amendment attorney Steven Katz has noted: "When government activity is conducted ... with the intent of preventing public opinion from mobilizing, it virtually ensures that once mobilized, public opinion will oppose the activity."
Our hope is that the public and CSD use this experience to find more apparent and less contentious means of moving the ball forward in future public comment periods.
Bowker and Seitz Publically Trample Constitutional Rights
Dispute Erupts Over Free Speech
by Antonio A. Prado, Sun Bulletin, posted on Aug 13, 2003A number of citizen comments might have been wrongly squelched at last week's Los Osos Community Services District board meeting.
That's according to Terry Franke, general counsel of the California First Amendment Coalition and longtime expert on free speech and open-government issues.
Board critic Cynthia Mulligan had tried to read a metaphoric tale of a village oppressed by an evil queen who was trying to expand her kingdom.
Mulligan's tale was a metaphor of the services' district's proposed sewer system and board President Rosemary Bowker's leadership. District residents were portrayed as oppressed peasants.
On the advice of district legal counsel Jon Seitz, Bowker ordered Mulligan to stop reading the tale.
"I did not get my three minutes," Mulligan said just before being ordered off the lectern, adding that Bowker and Seitz "interrupted me 20 times."
Seitz and Bowker said Mulligan had to address an issue specifically under the board's jurisdiction.
"We are not a monarchy here," Bowker said at the meeting. "We do not have any peasants. We do not have any serfs."
Franke said Bowker should not have had Sheriff's Lt. Martin Basti escort agency critic Cynthia Mulligan out of the Aug. 7 meeting.
He added that Annie Mueller and Celeste Royer should not have been squelched for expressing views of loyalty and support for the district board after Mulligan was told to leave.
Franke said limitations on public comment must be content-neutral.
"Agencies can't say how you speak or limit the manner in which you express a point of view," Franke said.
"They can't limit the use of satire or metaphors as long as the speaker is talking about the agency or what the agency does."
Seitz said in a phone interview Aug. 12 that "it wasn't clear" what Mulligan was talking about when she read her comments.
"My view of what happened is that the board should not be put in a position of trying to interpret the meaning of a public comment," Seitz said.
"If everybody could sit down at a public meeting and read a story, and it was objectively clear as to what the message was, and the message had to do with the subject matter jurisdiction of the board, it's clearly permissible."
Mueller and Royer were told by Seitz that their political comments in support of the board amounted to "campaigning."
But Seitz said later that he is second-guessing his remarks limiting their comments.
"When I was driving home, I thought I probably was overreacting because of what happened with Cynthia Mulligan," Seitz said.
Hundreds of property owners will have to pay thousands of dollars more to connect to the sewer and $10-$15 more each month
by Brad Smith, The Tribune Viewpoint, posted on Aug 3, 2003The LOCSD Web page, http://www.losososcsd.org/wwp/grinder.pumps.list.html, lists 263 properties that will need to pump raw sewage.
There are several reasons to be concerned if your property is on this list!
Owners of properties requiring grinder pumps need to pay for engineering, design, materials and installation (estimated by LOCSD at $3,000), and should be aware that:
1) the LOCSD bears no responsibility for installation or operation of the pump system - it is up to the property owner to plan, purchase, install, and maintain the pump, electrical circuit and controls and pipes on the property
2) the pump will need to be replaced every 5 to 10 years at a cost of at least $500 ($50-$100 per year)
3) the pump uses electricity from the property which the owner must pay for (about $2/month)
4) a 220V supply for the pump will likely need to be wired from the fuse panel
5) when you lose power, you cannot flush the toilets or they will overflow
6) the pump must be inspected every year at the owner's expense ($75 per year)
7) the pump could fail at an inconvenient time (which would become evident by the toilets backing up)
In many other projects, the sewer district specifies, purchases, installs and maintains the pumps, saving money, time and headaches for its "customers," the rate-payers, and ensuring uniformity and consistent quality.
A few examples are Leesburg, VA, Tullahoma, TN, Lincoln/Lewis/Vannoy, VA, and Dahlonega, GA.
In an effort to appear helpful, the LOCSD web site has a link to a list of 12 companies which supposedly supply grinder pumps - but these are all CANADIAN companies!
Amazingly, not a single US company is recommended in LOCSD's list.
Hundreds of residents already faced with liens against their properties and higher monthly fees, and who now must find thousands of dollars more to join the party should plainly understand the total extravagance of this project.
Water company challenges Osos sewer discharge plan in court
by David Sneed, The Tribune, posted on Thu, Jul.24, 2003One of Los Osos' water purveyors has sued to try to block the planned method of discharging treated effluent in the community's proposed sewer. It's the latest in a series of legal actions against the Los Osos Community Services District's proposed $92 million sewer. »full story
Adobe® Reader®
Download the free Adobe Reader to view your Adobe PDF files.
County planners vote 4-0 for sewer
Project marches forward; opponents likely to appeal to Board of Supervisors
by David Sneed, The Tribune, Posted on Fri, Jul. 25, 2003LOS OSOS - Calling the proposed Los Osos sewer system the best project available, county planners Thursday approved the system, including the controversial downtown location of the treatment plant. » full story
Osos sewer price tag higher than expected
Project design changes may cost households more
by Cleve Wootson, Jr., The Tribune, Posted on Mon, Jun. 09, 2003
LOS OSOS - The proposed Los Osos sewer could end up costing local households roughly $117 monthly -- $10 more than prior estimates. That's what Bruce Buel, general manager of the Los Osos Community Services District, estimates it will cost to finance a $7.3 million increase in the $84.6 million project over 30 years. » full story
Home
• Issues
• News • How
to Help • About •
Contact Us • Search
• Site Map •
Privacy Policy