From the CCSD’s web site comes this press release about the protest of the rates:
CCSD FINALIZES RATES PROTEST TABULATION
Cambria, CA—The Cambria Community Services District (CCSD) has completed validation and tabulation of written protests to its proposed rate increase received at the July 14, 2008 public hearing.
directed by the CCSD Board of Directors, the League of Women Voters
San Luis Obispo County (League) provided oversight during the tabulation and validation process from July 15-August 6. Public observation was also allowed during this time.
Below are the criteria required for a valid protest. These were specified by the CCSD in its rates proposal notice mailed to CCSD property owners and tenant customers in May 2008:
1) Must indicate portion of rate increases being supported or protested;
2) Must submit name of property owner or tenant customer;
3) Must provide service address and signature of property owner or tenant customer. No copies of signature acceptable.
Verified property owner customers included spouses, domestic partners, trusts, non-profit and business organizations. Verified tenant customers were only those holding a CCSD service account.
The League recommended a random sampling of the protests for signature verification. Using CCSD customer service and property owner parcel files, approximately 10% did not match the signatures on file. As a result, the League further recommended an outside signature verification process be conducted by the San Luis Obispo Clerk-Recorder’s Office, which occurred during the week of July 28. Digitized original signatures of registered voters in Cambria were used for comparison. Representatives from the CCSD and the League were present as observers.
As publicly discussed by District Counsel Art Montandon, the tabulation of the written protests was reviewed per CCSD customer service account and per service parcel.
The League is prepared to certify the following results at the CCSD’s next regular Board Meeting at 12:30 p.m. on Thursday, August 21, 2008, Veterans Memorial Building, Cambria.
RATE PROTEST RESULTS
PER CCSD CUSTOMER SERVICE ACCOUNT
Valid Protests Received 1,965
Majority Protests Required 2,001 (3,999÷2 (+1)
PER CCSD SERVICE PARCEL
Valid Protests Received 1,939
Majority Protests Required 1,966 (3,929÷2 (+1)
My initial thoughts on the situation: No matter which half of the town you side with, remember we are one community and many voices – five of whom we elected to have the final say on many community issues. Democracy in action can be chaotic and messy. Personally, I hope to see all Cambrians rising to the occasion. Let’s talk and try to remember its not about winning or losing or being right or wrong – it’s about listening and building understanding and consensus. (Of course, I can speak only for myself….chime in…whether you agree with me or not…)
Last 5 posts by Amanda Rice
- Gail Robinette Chosen to Complete DeMicco's Term as CCSD Director on Unanimous Vote
- California Coastal Commission Unanimously Denied Army Corps Desal Tests
- Cambria CSD Agenda for November 27, 2011 Meeting Includes Water Conservation & New Tank Project
- Sunken Oil Tanker Off Cambria's Coastline Will Be Checked Again Soon
According to the Tribune article Art has again agreed to review the disallowed protests with CFR.
Most likely CFR will not disagree with their determination of duplicate protests, although CFR can certainly choose to validate them. As to the signature issue, having the county Clerk-Recorder in the process appears to add legitimacy through independence, and possibly expertise, to the signature verification process. The details of this process are important, as are the number of protests that this part of the validation adversely impacted. The article says that a comparison was done of all protests to voting records. What does that mean? First, not all protest filers are registered voters, so what happened if no signature match could be done? For those protest filers who are registered voters, does it mean that they compared it to records for the last vote cast by the person? If so, the impact of age and/or illness on a person’s signature over time has been minimized or eliminated. I presume that CFR can get that information from the county Clerk-Recorder. When the comparison was made, who made the determination that the signatures did not match? If it was the county Clerk-Recorder, and they routinely do so during normal elections, CFR will have increased difficulty challenging the process. CFR still could attempt it’s own validation on protests invalidated due to signatures through a procedure we’ve discussed before if there are enough in this category to potentially change the outcome.
While I am disappointed that at this point the protest has failed, those that participated in it should be proud of our efforts and recognize that we still have made a difference. Because of the protest effort, as well as the upcoming election, current Board members are now more conciliatory in their dealings with the community. Where Board members never strayed from strict adherence to their proposals, they are now sending signals that they may re-visit their planned actions. I think that they have finally gotten the message that CFRCCSD, and now CFR, are not small groups of citizens out of touch with the community, but rather are groups of citizens in touch with a large segment of the community.
Late this afternoon, August 11, 2008, I saw that the rates protest tabulation finalized by the CCSD has been revised. In the News Release on the CCSD web site the “Valid Protests Received” “per CCSD Service Parcel” totals 1966. This means the protest achieved more than a majority of the 3,929 parcels. I hope this is accurate.
I would still like to see a list of parcels cross-referenced with both customer service account meter sites and with street addresses. Which CCSD lists show as many as 3929 distinct parcels and why?
I would also like to see a list of property owners more up to date than two years to six months or so ago. I would also like to see a more up to date list of tenant utility customers.
The only change in the revised press release is the following sentence Original: “Using CCSD customer service and property owner parcel files, approximately 10% did not match the signatures on file. As a result, the League further recommended an outside signature verification process be conducted by the San Luis Obispo Clerk-Recorder’s Office, which occurred during the week of July 28.” Revised: “Approximately 10% did not match the signatures on file from CCSD customer service and property owner parcel files. As a result, the League further recommended an outside signature verification process be conducted by the San Luis Obispo Clerk-Recorder’s Office, which occurred during the week of July 28.”
The numbers are not different – the valid protests recieved and required are the same in both versions. The post above was cut and pasted from the original 8/8/8 press release, if you want to compare for yourself. The outcome has not changed…yet.
I would like to see a list of disqualified petitions
Elizabeth Bettenhausen is correct. There have been three CCSD WEBSITE REVISIONS- three revisions have been made but not noted as such on Website.
CCSD New Release of the results of Proposition 218 protest.
1. I asked Connie Davidson thru an email last Friday, (Aug.
that the following sentence be changed as it is not accurate. Connie said she would let T. Rudock know. To date, and after 3 revisions this sentence has not been corrected.
“The public observed tabulation and the validation process from July 15- August 6.”
I asked that the sentence be changed to read:
“The public was allowed to observe the alphabetizing and sorting of protests from July 15 thru July 18, and July 21.”
2. Revision 8.11.08 was made August 11th and several items were changed. I have the PDF Revision 8.11.08 (made on August 11th). In this revision, the number of majority protests per CCSD Service Parcel was changed to 1966 (from 1939) which would mean the citizen’s protest was successful.
3. Yet another revision (still incorrectly labeled 8.11.08) was made this morning (August 12) and several items were changed. In this revision, the number of majority protests per CCSD Service Parcel was changed from 1966 (back to 1939) which would mean the citizen’s protest was unsuccessful. Why isn’t this version labeled revision 3? I have the latest Revision 8.11.08 which should be corrected to be labeled revision 3, 8.12.08.
I have an email into the CCSD to ask if the number of “valid protests received by CCSD Service Parcel” was 1939 or 1966? Cambrians should know, however, that none of the numbers so far published by the CCSD, agree with numbers I have on my database.
Sincerely,
Mary Webb
CFR
This is grounds for termination, and DA material . Tampering with a protest count.
Mary- you are providing a valuable service by keeping us informed of this unfolding saga of the ever-changing count. Your due diligence is appreciated and thank you Amanda for providing About Cambria.Com which is proving to be more valuable everyday in keeping us informed about our community.
With anticipation I await the next chapter.
Below is the latest correspondence.
Email from Connie DAvidson August 12:
Last Friday when I wrote the first draft of the release I made a mistake on the chart, which was corrected by CCSD staff before it was placed on the website Friday afternoon. Unfortunately, I picked up this old draft by mistake yesterday when making some very minor, not content, refinements on the release. When I learned about my error yesterday afternoon, I replaced it with the correct release last evening. There was no August 12 revision. These figures are absolutely correct. (Connie Davidson)
Response to Connie from MAry:
Thank you for responding so quickly. I can understand a simple mistake in using an older draft of something. I’ve also been informed that this mistake was caught August 11 (after 5 p.m. I’m guessing) rather than this morning (August 12). This does not completely address my concerns however. If revisions are made to documents, it should be noted very clearly the date of the original document, and all revision numbers should be noted after that. There is no way to know if something is revised otherwise. I am still concerned that the news release is stating that public observation of protest validation occurred until August 6 as this is simply not a statement of fact.
Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to the corrections in this news release.
Mary Webb
C.F.R.
I would like to know how the County verified my signature since I am not a registered voter in SLO county. I have paid a water bill for over 16 years and I do not recall ever signing anything and if I did my signature has most certainly changed over the years. What a total disregard to spending CCSD money to hire a hand writing expert to verify votes, who is accountable for wasteful spending of our money. I will be registering in SLO so I can vote in the upcoming board election and you can bet I will not vote for any incumbents, and I urge everyone to do the same. What ever started this distrust of the current board: perhaps dishonesty and secrecy, rudeness and wastful spending! I have written the board and the CCSD about my vote but have not had a reply. I did receive replys from Ann M Garfinkel, Pres, LWVSLOCo and The Cambrian Newspaper, Thank You.
Ongoing Saga:
For those of you who STILL believe what you hear from the CCSD, here’s the latest email from Connie Davidson, replying to my request that inaccurate information be changed on CCSD’s news release of August 8th. This News Release incorrectly states that “public observation was allowed to occur July 15 -August 6.” WE all know public observation was prohibited July 19 & July 20 (the weekend) and July 22 thru August 6. It was during this time all the validation, tabulation, and signature verification occurred. The public was only allowed to watch the CCSD and the League of Women Voters sort and alphabetize the protests, which garnered very little information.
Email from Connie August 14:
Hi Mary:
You’re correct, I should have noted the revisions by number and will do so if any other revision occurs. I was directed not to change the release regarding public observation dates.
Best regards,
Connie