Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Richardson LTR 08 09 10 To Neumiller - Comm CTR 6th Demand To Cure

    Uploaded by

    dbkooks
    23 views23 pages
    This is only his sixth demand. I think we're into double digits now. Pretty boring except you have to see for yourself what a 23 page rant looks like. Case study of "people with waaaay too much free time on their hands"

    Original Title

    Richardson Ltr 08 09 10 to Neumiller - Comm Ctr 6th Demand to Cure

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This is only his sixth demand. I think we're into double digits now. Pretty boring except you have to see for yourself what a 23 page rant looks like. Case study of "people with waaaay too much free time on their hands"

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    23 views23 pages

    Richardson LTR 08 09 10 To Neumiller - Comm CTR 6th Demand To Cure

    Uploaded by

    dbkooks
    This is only his sixth demand. I think we're into double digits now. Pretty boring except you have to see for yourself what a 23 page rant looks like. Case study of "people with waaaay too much free time on their hands"

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 23
    ‘Town of Discovery Bay SD William R. Richardson pee aiia August 9, 2010 VIA FACSIMILE (209) 948-4910 Michael F. McGrew, Esq AND US MAIL NEUMILLER & BEARDSLEE 509. West Weber Avenue PO Box 20 Stockton, CA 95201-3020 Re: COMMUNITY CENTER - SIXTH DEMAND TO CURE Dear Mr, McGrew: For many months I have expressed my concerns to the CSD about the process being used by the CSD Board and NBUMILLER & BEARDSLEE regarding the Community Center. In numerous letters I have explained what I believe to be the facts of the matter. Occasionaly I would receive an answer, which was mostly denials of my concerns, like your July 8, 2010 denial of my FIFTH DEMAND TO CURE Prompted by your July 8 letter, I wrote two letters with the objective that I might tap into some knowledge, superior to my own, which would allow me to become comfortable with the Board's actions, or inactions, and denials. One of those letters was my July 28, 2010 twelve page letter to General Manager Howard. That letter contains many years of concern. I have orally offered to meet with Mr. Howard to discuss the many issues I raise in the letter, to make a written response easier. I have not yet heard from him, but I expect to soon. The second was my August 2, 2010 letter to you which you responded to orally after the August 4 CSD meeting adjourned. Quite frankly, I am disappointed that you would not put your admission that the csp is in fact violating THE BROWN ACT regarding the illegal open sessions before the closed sessions in writing. Tt would seem that you include NEUMILDER & BEARDSLEE with the Piepho-driven- Board and its mantra to never admit that it did something wrong. | I regret that practice on your part. | Iwas also surprised to hear you say that you and Mr. Howard did not know that the Board was not conducting the open. session, before the closed sessions, in compliance with THE BROWN ACT. I assume that you meant that President Graves was at fault for that illegal conduct. The reason for my surprise is that you both were present at the entire Board meeting on July 21, 2010 when the open session before the closed session was obviously not legal. Maybe more than surprised, I am confused. Can you clear up that obvious inconsistency, which might also clarify the cloud you have cast on President Graves who, I believe, was following your advice. I believe that I must pursue a SIXTH DEMAND 0 CURE regarding the Conmunity Center because neither I nor the people have received anything that would indicate the Board is stopping its illegal actions regarding the Community Center, etc. 1774 Seal Way + Discovery Bay, California 94505 + (925) 516-9500 Michael F, McGrew, Esq august 9, 2010 Page two In addition, your July 8, 2010 categorical denial of my FIFTH DEMAND turned out to be wrong, by your own admission, and in retrospect my July 3, 2010 letter did not state the problems I saw as well as it could have,, so I will partially amend them herein. 1. DEMAND T0 CURE REGARDING ILLEGAL OPEN SESSION BEFORE CLOSED SESSION This should not be debatable any longer since you have admitted the Board has not complied with THE BROWN ACT. ("act" herein) Do you agree? 2. DBMAND 10 CURE REGARDING HOLDING AT LEAST ONE AND PROBABLY MANY MORE CLOSED SESSIONS NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED BY THE ACT ‘The minutes of the June 27, 2010 record the following: "C. Return to Open Session; report on Closed Session. “pirector Piepho made a motion to have Agency Negotiator bring back a proposal for Board consideration for property acquisition located at 1520 Discovery Bay Blvd. Director Tetreault 2nd the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nos, 0 abstain." I am particularly shocked that such a motion was made by Director Piepho. As he stated, under oath in his October 10, 2008 deposition transcript, page 154, lines 1-2: "I have been a student of parliamentary procedure." To have made a motion which, on the face of it, was a blatant violation of THE BROWN ACT could only indicate that Mr. Piepho must have missed a few lectures along the way. a. Section 54956.8 of the ACY makes it crystal clear that the only subjects which may be discussed ina closed session are for the Board to grant authority to Mr. Howard regarding the price and terms of payment. ‘the report on the closed session, repeated herein before, is not in any way in compliance with the ACY. The motion that Mr. Piepho made, and the Board followed blindly, is to request a proposal from, presumably, Mr. Hofmann. Apparently the Board had not decided on a price or terms of payment. In addition, there was absolutely ng need to keep that “action taken" by, the Board secret from Mx. Hofmann. Mr, Howard was specifically instructed to communicate it to him. Michael F. McGrew, Esq August 9, 2010 Fage three It is in blatant violation of the ACT to conduct that June 27 deliberation in closed session, rather than in an open and public session, where the people of Discovery Bay could enjoy the benefits the ACT affords to them, As stated in the Attorney General's pamphlet about the AC’ ",.,one should be mindful of the ultimate purposes of the Act -- to provide the public with an opportunity to monitor and participate in the decision-making processes of the Board.. (emphasis added) The CSD Board's constant and blatant illegal use of the closed session, and adherence to the Piepho Doctrine that the less the people know the better, will hardly achieve that ultimate purpose of the ACT. b. For the Board to take action regarding 1520 Discovery Bay Blvd ("1520" herein) that it actually did in its report, repeated herein before, the Board of necess: had to have deliberated about 1520 and decided that a proposal from Mr. Hofmann was the proper thing to do. That could only have occurred at an illegal meeting one not properly noticed, or an illegal use of a closed session, It is crystal clear that the ACT requires that deliberation to occur in a properly noticed and held open and public session. I have been trying, repeatedly, to get the CsD to provide me with the notice, agenda and minutes of such a meeting, and the CSD has refused to provide anything but obfuscation and double talk. The reason is also crystal clear. No such meeting has ever been held. Any discussions of 1520 that the Board has indulged in could only have occurred in'the several closed sessions which have been held, and that is a flagrant violation of the ACT. From unofficial feedback that I have received, this Board believes that any and everything that has the name "Real Property" associated with it can be deliberated in a closed session. Is that your position? If what I have stated above is true, and I believe that it is, all members of the CSD Board have also violated Section 54959 of the ACT which reads as follows. Michael F. McGrew, Esq August 9, 2010 Page four "54959, Violation of Act, Criminal Penalty "gach member of a legislative body who attends a meeting of that legislative body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter, and where the member intends to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled under this chapter, is quilty of a misdemeanor." . (emphasis added Other residents of Discovery Bay and I have, for months, been trying to get the Board to openly discuss what was happening regarding the Community Center, and that has been done in writing and orally during Board meetings. The Board has steadfastly refused to do so. There is no doubt that all members of the Board know the public is entitled to the information requested, and there can be no doubt that all members of the Board have intended to deprive the public of information, In particular, Parliamentary Student Piepho, who is also the perpetrator of the "keep the public in the dark" scam, knew what he was doing. Consequently, all members of the Board are guilty of a misdemeanor. Do you agree? I would not like to see the expense and tumult which would result from pursuing remedies for the Board's blatantly illegal behavior. But I believe the Board has only two options: (1) Cure the action immediately by simply noticing and conducting an open and public meeting to thoroughly discuss the Community Center, or (2) Be subject to action under Section 54960. Violation of Act; Civil Remedies. Mr. McGrew, why wouldn't it be best for NEUMILLER & BBARDSLEE to stop denying and contorting everything I send you, and for you to advise the Board to faithfully comply with the ACT, bend over backwaras to do so (see Section 54953.7 regarding the ACT being “,.sminimal standards...") and stop being a constant. enabler of illegal Board conduct, always on the outer edge of legality? Michael F. McGrew, Esq August 9, 2010 Page five 3. DEMAND TO CURE REGARDING CONFUSING, INCONSISTENT DISORGANIZED, MISLEADING NOTICES OF CLOSED SESSIONS I believe that the statutes which govern special districts require the elected representatives who serve on boards of directors, and paid staff, to use the best management techniques possible in the best interest of the people who delegate the authority to govern to those representatives and staff. Do you agree? In addition, Section 54954.2 of the ACT regulates agenda, including the requirment that the agenda must list everything which will be allowed to be discussed. If "it' is not on the agenda, it can not be discussed. Do you agree? The CSD has been in business for over ten years. It is not unreasonable for the people to expect that its elected representatives and paid staff have figured out the simple task of how to prepare a notice of closed sessions which consistently provides all of the information the people need to know to be properly informed, and to allow them to make decisions regarding their monitoring and participating in all meetings in the governance of their community. They should not have to call the District office to figure out what is meant by the inconsistent formats used by the CSD. Sadly, that is not the case with the CSD. To illustrate the point, I enclose the following notices which supposedly all announce the exact same type of meeting, a closed session: July 21, 2010: There is absolutely no indication that anything will occur prior to going Into the closed session which would prompt the people to attend the meeting to monitor and participate in what is supposed to happen in the open session. Yet, in fact, PUBLIC COMMENTS were allowed on July 21. If you review the enclosed minutes of the July 21, 2010 meeting, you will note that you did not provide the people with any "facts and circumstances" about the “initiated litigation," such as names of the parties involved and the basic issues involved. For comparison, see the Notice and Minutes of the December 16, 2009 meeting, hereinafter, for the inconsistency. Michael F. McGrew, Esq August 9, 2010 Page six June 27, 2010: Note that "ROLL CALL" and "Call business meeting to order" are mentioned in the notice. "PUBLIC COMMENTS" are not mentioned, but were allowed by President Graves in an act of "generosity." There were no public comments, but that is not recorded in the minutes, What about the people who would have attended if they had known they could make public comments, but did not attend because the Notice did not list same? How does that comply with Section 54954.2 (no action or discussion allowed)? December 16, 2009: Note that "ROLL CALL" alone is mentioned on the Notice, but paragraph B describes an “announcement of facts and circumstances..." concerning potential litigation initiated by Mr. Mankin. The minutes contain a very informative explanation to the people, given by Mr. Stovall, about what Mr. Mankin's potential litigation is all about. August 5, 2009: There is absolutely no indication that anything will occur prior to going into the closed session which would prompt the people to attend the meeting to monitor and participate in what was supposed to happen in the open session. I do not believe that PUBLIC COMMENTS were allowed on August 5. These few examples of many illustrate both the absence of a proper open session before the closed session and the confusing inconsistencies, etc., that characterize CSD's management skills, all to the detriment of the people. I believe that they are in violation of the acr. SUMMARY I hope that this lengthy recitation will not prompt you to react with the typical NEUMILLER & BEARDSLEE response. That is a tortured analysis which turns the law, reason and common sense all-on their heads. Instead of that, I hope that you will ignore this Board's, especially Mr. Piepho's, requirement above everything else to not admit that it has done anything wrong. The best interests of the people and community all come in a poor second to, for instance, Mr. Piepho's political ambitions. Michael F. McGrew, Esq August 9, 2010 Page seven What I hope that you will go on to, from the things mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 herein, is to advise the Board to simply admit its mistakes, blame whoever they must, if they need to, cure the actions and move on. I believe that the simple act of noticing a meeting, with lots of time allowed, to openly and transparently inform the people of what has been happening behind closed doors, which would make the acquisition of 1520 appear to be a fait accompli, would suffice. How did the Board get to the motion made by Parliamentarian Student Piepho on dune 27, 2010? ‘The Board should also make available to the people, preferably before that meeting, all of the work product of its due diligence which any competent party acquirng real property would perform. If there is none, the Board should just say so and let the people help decide what to do about that, too. In other words, Mr. McGrew, there is a very simple process which should have been being followed by the Board which can be substituted for the illegal one now being followed I believe that the change had better occur before 1520. is a "done deal." I certainly recommend that I hope to hear from you soon on this SIXTH DEMAND T0 CURE. Sincerely, nSbdode— William R. Richardson enclosures cet J. Kevin Graves, President w/encls Mark Simon, Vice President w/encls Brian Dawson, Treasurer w/encls Ray Tetreault, Director w/encls David Piepho, Director w/encls Richard J. Howard, General Manager (hand carried) w/encls Catherine Kutsuris, Director DCD w/encls ‘1800 Witlow Lake Road, Diseovery Bay, CA 94508-9316 Yolephone: (925) 6A-1I31 Fax; (025) 513-2705 Won seinbors nieve Misti sina NOTIGEOPREGULAR MMETING eet Darid tpt OF THE ROARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE Diode Fak ‘TOWN:OF DISCOVERY BAY CSD ‘Weatnesiiaye duly 24, 2010 1800' Willow Lake Road, Diseovoty Bay, California ‘Website address; wuwetodh.cn.goy, re TING nt 6:36 A, CLOSED SESSION: i. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Government Code Section 51956.8 Property: 1520 Discovary.Bay-Bowlevard, Discovery Bay Calfornia ‘Agency Negotiator: Rick Hower ‘Negotiating Pavty: Hofinann’ Lan Development Company Under Negotiation: Price nd terms of payment 2, \GONRERTNCE WITH LEGAL-COUNSEL ~Initinted Litiztic initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision () of Seotion 49563: ‘One potential case BB, Retuen.fo open session; repor' on elosed-session 4. Call business mesting to order/:00pan, 2. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Repotton-closed sesston |. RECOGINFION ‘Te Vingil Koshne for Service and Dedication-to:the Communlty and to the Town of Discovery Bay CSD B, PUBLIC COMMENSS (Public Gomment “The puble may wddvess the Board. on any issue inthe Dishiotsnisicton, which isnot othe agenda, ‘The public may comment on any item on the agenda atthe ime-that item 4s taken-up, Any person vvishing to Speak st come ap and spat. the pam, Tha il boo dng bse te Bow! andthe commenter, Any caefying questions fiom the Board! mast go.throughithe Chair. ¢, PRESENTATIONS i Discovery Bay Pas'Zone Citizen Advisory Commitee, “Tomo Discovery Bay CSD Bead of Dictons 23,2010, Dy CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Mimutesprovious meeting, Special Mécting of Juno2t, 2010-and Regular Meeting July , 2010 2. Various Distiot Invoices 3, Letter to Contta Costa Contity regarding: commonts t@ Contr Costa County Deparunent of Conservation and Development regarding proposed Village at Biscovery Bay project 4, Latter to Califorsi Dopariment of Boating an! Waterwaysrevarding he rquat Weed Bgeca Densa 5. Lette of Protest tothe Last Contra Costa Hire Projection District Beatd expressing concen repatding the-elosure of 90-2) fre stations ‘6, Letter fo LAFCO.tephudling, Bust Contra‘Gosta Bio. Proteetton Dishict Boars decision to clote fire siationsin Byron-and Discovery Bay NEW-BUSINESS AND.ACTION TEMS PUBLIC HEARING 10 establish charges for Water and Waslewaler services ancl collection of the ‘horyoron'the County Tas Rol frie 010/201 Hiscal Year (Continue to-Augsst 4, 2010) -Bovantt 2. Introduce snd Waive Reading of Ordinance No. 21, an Oidinance directing’ the:fees and charges be adopted by Resolution - Howard fh CHMR REPORT G DIRECrORS-comMMENIS H, GENERAL MANAGER REPORT LLandseape Update (Perez) 2, Water's: Wastewater Projects (Koehne) 1, LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT i pSPONDENCE-Discussion and mn 1, ReLetter from Cental Valley Selinliy Coalition, nc. dated Juy't,2010 21 '$ “Letter o'Contra Costa County:rogarding’County Fils No. LP1O-2048 (Reymond ill) KC, PUBLICRECORD REOURSTS RICCHIVED UJ. Request stom William Richardson-received:Into5, 2000 (1), Request fionr William Richaedsor received Sunol, 2010 @)_Requestiom William Richardsonteceived Juno-21, 2010 {@)__Requestsiom Wiliam Rioherdso'received July 6,2010 J) Request from Walt Mons reesived July 2010 1). Request fiom Don int secelved. ny 8, 2010. EUTURE AGRNDA CTHMS M, AbsoURNMENT Adjourn to next’ Regalersmecting of August-4, 2010-starting.at 7:00pm at'1800 Willow ‘Lake Road- Located inbackof he Delta Community Presbyteian Church, “This agenda-sall be made available upon requestinallometive Yormatsto persons sith a disability, as requted bye American with Disebilites.Act of 1999.(12°US.C, § 12192)-and-the Raph M, Brovm Act (Catiforia

    You might also like