Liar

Jump to main page Jump to site map Jump to the end of this page

LIAR?

This correspondence thread is from the Rio Linda mailing list. It starts with an accusation of all Board members being liars, posted by Mrs. Sandy Nelson, recall proponent Darrell Nelson's wife. Ultimately, Mr. Nelson takes over, demonstrating in his run on message, the petty personalization now engaged by Mr. Nelson and his co-proponents of my recall.

Are these proponents of my recall part of the problem or part of the solution? You decide.

click here for later correspondence

Subject: Re: [RL] Fw: Neighbors - Proposal to merge water agencies advances
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 01:28:06 EDT
From: SNelson840@aol.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Walt,
I couldn't of said it better! "GET THEM OUT OF OFFFICE, ALL OF THEM". WE DON'T WANT A BOARD OF LIARS RUNNING OUR WATER DISTRICT ANY MORE. I'm sure the next board members will do a more honest job for our community.

Sandy

>From the Rio Linda mailing list

Subject: [RL] LIAR?
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:05:22 -0700
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Rio Linda Elverta Mailing List <riolinda@vrx.net>

Mrs. Nelson,

Your email, copied above, publicly alleges that I am a liar, without citing any example of said behavior.

Please elucidate.

Thank you.

Jay O'Brien
Director, Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

Subject: Re: [RL] LIAR?
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 00:00:13 EDT
From: SNelson840@aol.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Mr. O'Brien,

I was referring to a certain board meeting when you made a motion to raise the rates 50% across the board. This meeting is on video and can viewed by anyone who is interested. The liar statement is meant to be the board as a whole and not an individual thing. This is my opinion as a community member of this water district, that I have been lied to by the board members or my water rates would not be going up aprox. 154%. So, don't take this statement so personal. I hope this helps you understand my statement better.

Sandy
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

Subject: Re:[RL] LIAR?
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 23:06:53 -0700
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Rio Linda Elverta Mailing List <riolinda@vrx.net>

Mrs. Nelson,

There is no way I can NOT take your accusation personally. My most valuable possession is my word. I am truthful and work to be credible. I expect the same from others. I suggest you review that meeting and your message, quoted above, again. You owe me an apology.

Several members of your family signed the recall document your husband served on me at the Water Board meeting May 14th. That document, like your LIAR statement, makes accusations without providing citations of examples. Your family is participating in "recalling Jay O'Brien for his betrayal of public trust". That is personal, why shouldn't I take your "LIAR" statement in the same way? I am offended.

Jay O'Brien
Director, Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District

PS to all interested.
The notices of recall and replies are on http://obri.net and more is to follow.

>From the Rio Linda mailing list

Subject: [RL] Response to Jay
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 17:49:39 EDT
From: Oneputt800@aol.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Jay, There is no need to turn this into personal attacks of one another. Many of your constituents are not happy with the fact that after lengthy debates and a compromise deal worked out between the board and the ratepayers was not followed through properly. We shook hands that night and then low and behold you board members turned on us. From what I gathered it was greed on the Districts part when the Power Plant come in to play. Someone at the board meeting used extort. Oh yea, that was the lawyer that you guys hired for 61 thousand dollars. The new 1 dollar per 100 cubic feet. For fun, have Mike run those numbers on the power plants usage and post them on this net. Do you think for one minute that they are going to pay anywhere near that amount? When you ran for office you wrote on your voter information that you would reduce the "STAB" charge and prevent future rate increases. I can post that page if you would like. Not only did you not keep this promise, you proposed a 100% increase that the ratepayers defeated under prop 218. You made a 50% across the board rate increase motion, shook our hands and then let others slip Mikes proposal in illegally that raised revenue 50%. The Districts own recap now shows it at 54% but who cares about even a 4% issue. Our rates are projected to be 154%. We had a deal and for not keeping your end of the deal you are being recalled. Other folks have there own reasons but that is mine. You are the one who interpreted the video for the rest of the board. Shame on them for not watching it themselves, but shame on you for your interpretation. We have been to enough board meetings to know the laws on motions. A motion is a motion and not the previous 20 minutes of discussion leading up to the motion. You board members knew that we could not afford a lawyer to fight this so a recall is the answer. The proponents are not the problem as you suggest, we are your constituents and we trusted you. No need to attack me or my family because we are not candidates for this board. My passion is at the High School where I can make a positive change in today's youth. If you choose to continue on this approach you will leave me no choice but to come forward with all of the information that has been pouring into me about the Water District and it's operations. You talk to the folks and ask them if they want this info to come out into open? As for me serving you. I was asked to facilitate the process because I had just gone through the process with the school board and I have the documents on my computer. You board members have lost touch with your community and starting serving your own personal needs. Have you forgotten that this is partly a rural town with homes in the middle of large fields? Is it fair to call us water wasters when we chose to place green grass around the perimeter of our houses to prevent total disaster from a fire? Is it too much to ask to be allowed to have the kids play on green grass at school and in the parks? I guess in the end it was. Let's try to get though this process with some dignity and professionalism. Darrell

>From the Rio Linda mailing list

Subject: Re: [RL] Response to Jay "LIAR" thread, recall attempt
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 14:41:53 -0700
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Rio Linda Elverta Mailing List <riolinda@vrx.net>

Mr. Nelson,

Thank you for responding for your wife in this matter. You did not address the issue of Mrs. Nelson asserting that I am a liar, however. This entire "liar" correspondence thread may be reviewed at http://obri.net/recall/liar.html .

I will attempt to reply to your one paragraph message quoted below.

Thank you for raising all these issues, and thank you for answering some questions I didn't ask; I believe it is appropriate for everyone to view the opposing viewpoints and logic, if there is any, on the subjects you identified. As you have covered many items in your single paragraph, I will number my replies to attempt to interject some clarity.

I will repeat your 593 word run on intact. My numbered replies then follow, interspersed with your statements.

Jay O'Brien

Further information: http://obri.net/recall

Subject: [RL] Response to Jay
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 17:49:39 EDT
From: Oneputt800@aol.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

[For clarity, the responses below from Jay O'Brien are numbered]

Jay, There is no need to turn this into personal attacks of one another.

1. I agree, so why are you and your wife mounting the attacks? I was merely responding to your wife calling me a liar without specific citations and using as an example the fact that you had asserted, in the recall notice you served on me, that I was "violating the public trust", also without providing any specific citations. The "liar" correspondence thread that was initiated by your wife may be viewed at http://obri.net/recall/liar.html.

Many of your constituents are not happy with the fact that after lengthy debates and a compromise deal worked out between the board and the ratepayers was not followed through properly.

2. Exactly what was the "compromise deal" you cite as being "worked out"? Where is it documented, and when was it "worked out"? Who made the motion, who seconded it, and what were the votes? What are you identifying as "debates?"

We shook hands that night

3. Sorry, but I don't remember shaking your hand "that night" or any other night at a RLECWD Board meeting. Which night do you reference? If I shook your hand it certainly was not to certify any "deal" made with you by the Board, as that would be recorded with a motion.

and then low and behold

4. That's "lo and behold", not "low and behold".

you board members turned on us.

5. Exactly how did I "turn on you"? Without an executed contract, how is that possible? You wanted 50% across the board, and that was my motion.You didn't want alternative 2, and I voted against it. Exactly what Board action taken by me are you identifying as "turning" on you?

From what I gathered it was greed on the Districts part when the Power Plant come in to play.

6. As to greed, exactly how do you propose that we Directors could benefit from the Power Plant?

Someone at the board meeting used extort. Oh yea,

7. The word is "yeah", not "yea". "Yea" is a voting response.

that was the lawyer that you guys hired for 61 thousand dollars. The new 1 dollar per 100 cubic feet. For fun, have Mike run those numbers on the power plants usage and post them on this net. Do you think for one minute that they are going to pay anywhere near that amount?

8. I don't understand the connection between personal attacks, your attempt to recall me and the law firm hired to represent the District. You are off subject. I have not reached a conclusion about what FPL would or would not pay. That is exactly why the Water District hired the attorney.

When you ran for office you wrote on your voter information that you would reduce the "STAB" charge and prevent future rate increases.

9. When I ran for office I stated that one of my top priorities was the Pipeline debt; I strongly supported the then potential sale of the $6M pipeline to Arcade, which if implemented, potentially would reduce the "STAB" fund and prevent future pipeline debt related rate increases. My campaign mailer is posted at http://obri.net/recall/1998Mailer.html and the shortened statement I provided to the League of Women Voters is still on line for review: http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/smartvoter/1998nov/ca/sac/vote/obrien_j/ . The smartvoter statement is clearly identified as part of my "Pipeline debt" priority. The sale did not come to fruition; instead, the Board, before I took office, settled with Northridge for $3M, which was not enough to pay off the debt and eliminate the STAB charge.

I can post that page if you would like.

10. Please post the page you quote. I would like to see what it is you have that will, without taking it out of context, show any campaign "promise" I made about rates that was not related to the pipeline debt and the proposed sale of the pipeline that was preempted before I took office.

Not only did you not keep this promise,

11. I don't recall any such "promise". Please provide facts. I stated my priorities, but I am not aware of any "promises" as applied to rate increases.

you proposed a 100% increase that the ratepayers defeated under prop 218.

12. The entire Board proposed the increase, not only me. Proposition 218 does not apply. If it did, and Proposition 218 was followed to the letter, there were not enough legally VALID protests; however, as Proposition 218 was only being used as an example, the Board accepted the protests as if they had qualified. Nothing was "defeated". Review http://obri.net/rl/1022617.html for the committee report of the count. See also http://obri.net/rl/ratestory.html for my opposing view of the rate story up through the counting of the petitions.

You made a 50% across the board rate increase motion, shook our hands

13. Wrong. I made a 65% motion at the March 5th board meeting, and Jerry's alternative 2 was added to the 65% motion. It was later modified to 50% and then it passed. There was NO handshake with you at that meeting, before or after alternative 2 was added to the motion.

and then let others slip Mikes proposal in

14. I accept culpability for not understanding Jerry's second to my motion. I discussed that in detail in March. See http://obri.net/rl/March26.html for the full story. Mr. Nelson, you were sitting about five feet from me during the entire time the motion was under discussion. If something was "slipped in", then weren't you, also, duped? Nothing was purposefully "slipped in". You and I (and even Board President Doug Cater, for that matter) did not understand the motion that Jerry seconded and modified. It is all on the video tape. Jerry is right, even though I did not support his proposal.

illegally that raised revenue 50%.

15. Please cite the statute that you claim was broken by the action you describe. "Illegally" is a strong accusation. Please back up your statement.

The Districts own recap now shows it at 54% but who cares about even a 4% issue. Our rates are projected to be 154%.

16. Please remember I voted against the alternative that was selected by the Board, as I felt it went against our commitment to the rate committee, from which which you resigned after reneging on your duties as chair of that committee. I voted your way, yet your recall statement chides me for my vote!

16a. And on the subject of you, as chair, resigning from the rate committee: Perhaps you are upset that I complained about you not taking any action to call the first meeting, not even delegating that task to another committee member as any good manager would do? Perhaps you are upset that I complained about your statement to the Board that you had met privately with Bill Shepherd, another committee member, and prepared a rate structure for the committee to approve? Perhaps you are upset that I called attention to the potential of Brown Act violation by you if any other member of the committee had participated in that discussion, given that no committee meetings had taken place? Perhaps my calling attention to these facts is the reason you have a personal vendetta against me? By the way, the "mission statement" you claimed to not receive as chairman was read to you at the March 5 meeting. You are on camera on the video tape watching the screen while that was presented to all of us by the District's financial consultant, Bob Reed. Didn't you listen?

We had a deal and for not keeping your end of the deal you are being recalled.

17. Again, please provide a copy of the "deal" you keep quoting. The one that I "didn't keep", and for not keeping it I'm being recalled. Please remember, the Board can't "make a deal" that isn't a motion and recorded.

other folks have there

18. The word is "their", not "there".

own reasons but that is mine.

19. I don't find your reason in the recall paper you served on me. Perhaps it would have been more correct to say that you are recalling two people because they voted for alternative 2, and you are recalling me because you don't like the way I part my hair? Given that you aren't attempting to recall the third Director, Doug Cater, who didn't "keep a deal" and voted against you, such a statement would be much more plausible. After all, you can recall someone just because you don't like them. Such a statement would make more sense than what you have placed in your notice to recall me.

You are the one who interpreted the video for the rest of the board.

20. I interpreted the video for myself, and shared my findings.

Shame on them for not watching it themselves,

21. How do you know who watched it and who didn't watch it?

but shame on you for your interpretation.

22. Now, who is personalizing? I covered this in my March 26 memo. See item 14 above. Jerry, who seconded my motion, clearly included his alternative. I did not understand that at the time, but confirmed it by reviewing the video tape. Jerry was right, I was wrong.

We have been to enough board meetings to know the laws

23. I suggest that board meetings are not the right place to learn laws. Law libraries or law schools are the places to learn laws.

on motions.

24. Please cite the code sections of the "laws on motions" to which you refer.

A motion is a motion and not the previous 20 minutes of discussion leading up to the motion.

25. Here you are flat wrong. A motion was made and was under discussion. The motion was on the floor and all discussion until a vote is taken, until the motion is withdrawn, or until the motion is tabled, is part of the debate of the instant motion. The motion was made for 65%, and Jerry added his alternative when he seconded the motion. Twenty-four minutes later, Jerry asked me to change the 65% to 50%. I did so. Jerry's second was conditioned on his original modification. Unfortunately, I didn't understand the changes Jerry made when he seconded the original motion, and I needed to review the video tape later to see what had transpired.

You board members knew that we could not afford a lawyer to fight this so a recall is the answer.

26. Interesting supposition on your part, that we Board members are in any way concerned about your financial status.

The proponents are not the problem as you suggest,

27. Please be sure to read my web page. At least three of the proponents, including you, have a personal vendetta to satisfy. Please review http://obri.net/recall .

we are your constituents and we trusted you.

28. Thank you.

No need to attack me or my family

29. Where and when did I attack you or your family? I am the one being attacked, by you and your family. You are not being attacked by me. I am merely responding to your attacks.

because we are not candidates for this board.

30. Does this mean that IF you were candidates, then you would be subject to attack? I don't understand the meaning of this phrase, sorry. What you may not understand is that by signing the recall notice, you are now a public figure, and in the context of the recall, you are subject to the same review and criticism as am I, as a public official.

My passion is at the High School where I can make a positive change in today's youth.

31. A noble desire. You are to be commended for your passion. Students can certainly benefit from adequate education, especially in the areas of spelling, sentence structure and english composition.

If you choose to continue on this approach you will leave me no choice but to come forward with all of the information that has been pouring into me about the Water District and it's operations.

32. That is clearly a threat and an attempt to intimidate a public official. However, I wish you would carry it out. I am very tired of your innuendoes and threats like the above. If there are problems, please get them out in the open so they can be addressed.

You talk to the folks and ask them if they want this info to come out into open?

33. Without specifics, I don't know who to talk to or what to ask "them". If there are problems, it is my job as a Board member to see that they are mitigated. If there is a problem that should be addressed, and if you know about it and you do nothing except attempt to intimidate and make threats, you are indeed part of the problem, whatever it is.

As for me serving you. I was asked to facilitate the process because I had just gone through the process with the school board and I have the documents on my computer.

34. Aha! I wondered who authored the documents and whether or not a computer was involved in any way. Thank you for clearing that up.

You board members have lost touch with your community and starting

35. That's "started", not "starting".

serving your own personal needs.

36. Please provide a specific citation of how I am serving my own personal needs. This is a serious accusation. Indeed you are impugning my personal values and standards, and I demand facts, not additional innuendoes.

Have you forgotten that this is partly a rural town with homes in the middle of large fields?

37. No.

Is it fair to call us water wasters when we chose to place green grass around the perimeter of our houses to prevent total disaster from a fire?

38. When were you called water wasters? I certainly didn't make that statement. If it was made by someone else, don't blame me for it. Are you are a water waster? I don't know.

Is it too much to ask to be allowed to have the kids play on green grass at school and in the parks? I guess in the end it was.

39. I don't understand your apparent conclusion that the grass won't be green at school and in the parks. Please provide facts, not suppositions.

Let's try to get though this process with some dignity and professionalism.

40. I agree. But you really need to fix your computer. It made a lot of mistakes.

40a. Thank you for responding for your wife. You did not address the issue I raised with her, however. Your wife still owes me an apology for calling me a liar. See http://obri.net/recall/liar.html . I am offended by her statement.

/end/

>From the Rio Linda mailing list

click here for later correspondence
Jump to beginning of page