These days, saying “Prop 218″ or “Protest” anywhere within earshot of a Cambrian and you’ll find yourself in a passionate conversation (and likely late for dinner). No matter what your position on the proposed increase, there is almost 100% chance you have at least one question about it. The CCSD isn’t being very communicative. The counting took a very long time and as of now, the results indicate 49.1% (or 49.35%) valid protests from Cambrians were returned by the deadline. Out of 2500 protests submitted, 535 (or 561) were invalidated for one reason or another. Curious about whether your vote counted? Many Cambrians are. Curious about how the protests were validated or determined to be invalid? Many Cambrians are. Concerned that the CCSD will continue to run the water and wastewater with a deficit? Many Cambrians are. Concerned that the town is bickering and arguing while our current infrastructure is in need of maintenance and doesn’t have the funds to pay for it? I’m sure I’m not alone on this one.
So what is the status of the protest? Members of CFR will be meeting with CCSD District Counsel Art Montandon tomorrow for about an hour to discuss the reasons for invalidating over 500 of the protest letters submitted. And the district has said it plans to have a meeting in room 204 on Friday for Cambrians to come with their questions, though as of this writing that is unconfirmed.
Whether or not the Board approves the proposed rates remains to be seen. Given that nearly half of Cambria took enough energy to at least listen to someone and sign a letter of protest. Some even went as far as folding it and putting it in an envelope, stamping it and dropping it in the mail. As the first week of counting was winding down, I watched as the last of the protest forms submitted on the 14th were logged in. Then the dozen or so protest letters submitted by individuals directly to the CCSD, by mail or at the meeting, were logged. Then, and this is the interesting bit, Kathy Choate pulled out a file folder and said, “We should probably log the letters of support.” Completely appropriate. And how many Cambrians sent letters of support? Two. Not two percent, but 1+1=2. Neither was logged because neither had identified the service address – which was the main identifier. A few people at the hearing on the 14th spoke in support of the CCSD and the need for people to stop being obstructionists. But only TWO put pen to paper to show their support.
Now, to be fair, those who supported the rate increase (or at least didn’t feel strongly enough to protest) were not approached at Farmer’s Market or the post office by people with form letters. They didn’t receive a form in the mail. But only two took the time to do what at least 49% of Cambria did – put their position in writing. That’s really a shame. No one who supports the CCSD thought to expend the energy to make it easy for Cambrians to take action to show their support for the CCSD – including the CCSD itself. The best it could muster was publishing 3 full page ads in the Cambrian urging residents to do nothing to show support. Another missed opportunity.
Looking through the looking glass the other direction, it could be that a far larger number of Cambrians opposed the rates, but were too overcome by procrastination, their busy lives or their laziness to submit a letter of protest before the deadline. I wonder how many protest letters found their way into the CFR’s post office box after July 14. Of course, those do not count. The district was clear that all protests had to be in their hands before the end of the public hearing…postmarks do not make a protest meet the deadline. But maybe CFR could offer them as additional support for not imposing the rates as proposed. Just a thought.
More valuable than a gallon of gas? Say YES! with a small donation today.
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
The News Release, “CCSD FINALIZES RATES PROTEST TABULATION,” is on the CCSD’s web site. Reading it, I make some comments and raise some questions as a concerned Cambrian who spent many hours observing the process. I am not a member of Cambrians for Fiscal Responsibility, but I do support their purpose.
Elizabeth Bettenhausen, Aug. 14, 2008
“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.”
QUESTION:Did the CCSD validate and tabulate the written protests that were received before the July 14, 2008, public hearing?
“As directed by the CCSD Board of Directors, the League of Women Voters of 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.”
QUESTION: What were the elements of the oversight provided by the League of Women Voters? The nature of the oversight was not told to the public observers, even after oral requests and a request in writing from some of them.
QUESTION: During what specific hours was public observation allowed? For example, it was not allowed at all on July 19 and 20, and it was not allowed after July 21. Public observation was not allowed during the discussion of the procedure to be used in the tabulation and validation process.
“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.
Must indicate portion of rate increases being supported or protested;
Must submit name of property owner or tenant customer;
Must provide service address and signature of property owner or tenant customer. No copies of signature acceptable.”
COMMENT: The CCSD letter dated May 23, 2008, stated that the “written statement of support or protest must include” the above elements. My continuing request for the criteria, the standards of judgment, used in the validation did not refer to required elements of the statement but rather the standards of judgment used to determine the validity of the elements in each statement of protest.
“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.”
COMMENT AND QUESTIONS: An example of a criterion that must be used according to the Constitution of California is a public list of the parcels used to determine to whom the “Notification of proposed water and sewer rate increase” would be sent. This list was not been made public, although reference was made to ca. 4500 recipients of the notice. Did the CCSD assume that one property owner gets one vote, regardless of how many parcels she or he owns? By what criterion was this decided? Did the CCSD assume that only the owner of a business has the authority to sign a statement of protest or support, and, if so, why? Did the CCSD assume that a tenant’s signature for a single family residential service address with one meter was not valid because another tenant at the same address opened the service account? If so, why?
Many of the criteria listed in the CCSD’s above paragraph were chosen during the process of verification. Some of the discussion was audible to the public observers. The standards of judgment were not written when the tabulation and validation procedure began. The entire list of criteria used is still not published.
It has still not been made public who received the “Notice of Proposed Water and Sewer Rate Increase.” The letter of May 23, 2008, does NOT say that only the property owner or tenant’s signature will be counted. The paragraph reads: “Property owners and tenant customers may express their support or opposition to the proposed water and sewer rate increases during the public hearing on Monday, July 14, 2008, at 5:30 p.m. Alternatively, a written statement of support or protest may be filed by the property owner and tenant customer with the CCSD District Clerk at or before the time set for the public hearing.” May I correctly assume that all property owners and tenants of metered service addresses for water customers and non-metered for sewer-only customers were notified? What is the total number of recipients based simply on this mailing number? What then is the total number of valid written statements that could be received?
“The League recommended a random sampling of the protests for signature verification. 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. Digitized original signatures of registered voters in Cambria were used for comparison. Representatives from the CCSD and the League were present as observers.”
QUESTION: When in the procedure did the League of Women Voters recommend each step and why? Is this one of the required elements when the LWV gives oversight to Prop. 218 tabulation and verification?
QUESTION: How was signature verification conducted for persons not “registered voters in Cambria”?
“As publicly discussed by District Counsel Art Montandon, the tabulation of the written protests was reviewed per CCSD Customer Service Account and per CCSD Service Parcel.”
QUESTION: When were the CCSD lists last updated (I assume use of the entire lists is implied in the statement)? The tabulation also used property owner lists from San Luis Obispo County. The county list was often more up to date. I noted this listening to the comparisons spoken by the verifiers.
QUESTION: Is the term “service parcel” synonymous with “service address”?
“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 plus 1)
PER CCSD SERVICE PARCEL
Valid Protests Received 1,939
Majority Protests Required 1,966 (3,929÷2 plus 1)
[end of quotation]
COMMENT: I note that the numbers above on Monday, August 11, 2008, were different. Valid protests received under service parcels was 1966, and 1966 was not listed on the next line as half plus one of 3929. The numbers have twice been revised. Who has the authority to revise the results tabulation, why, and how often? The News Release indicates near its beginning that it was last revised on “8.11.08.”
Elizabeth, Mary posted this yesterday about the Press release:
# M. Webb Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 7:28 am edit
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.