Publisher’s note: Even though the Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce claims to not have a preconceived political agenda and says it wants to be transparent, board member Jason Drew last year at a public meeting said, “Our goal is to find, recruit, and elect people to the South Lake Tahoe City Council and then hold that council accountable.”

To the community,

There have been many questions related to our new activities associated with candidate endorsements so in an effort to clarify here is an overview of the history and process. I apologize for the length — this is a complicated topic and not one well suited to brevity.

Tahoe Chamber has a long history of representing business to government via advocating for policies that provide a fair and predictable process for businesses of any size. This process is guided by our Government Affairs Committee (GAC), the board, the chamber CEO and our government affairs liaison. In 2012, the Tahoe Chamber board of directors decided it was time to take an active role in political advocacy by engaging in the electoral process. This decision was based upon the premise that the future sustainability and economic vibrancy of our community was dependent upon well informed and capable elected leaders. Board and staff members participated in several workshops and trainings with experts. While this is a new activity for Tahoe Chamber, hundreds, if not thousands of other proactive chambers across the country have long been engaged in the electoral process.

B Gorman

It is perfectly legal for a chamber of commerce to endorse candidates and to share the reasons for so doing. Given a chamber’s mission of supporting and growing business it only makes sense that candidates who are endorsed by a chamber are those who exhibit the greatest understanding of business and economic development.

If a chamber directly contributes funds to candidates or ballot measures it risks triggering a reclassification of its corporate status resulting in complex reporting. Thus chambers who wish to support candidates or ballot measures with direct expenditures form committees that vary depending upon the type of activities to be undertaken. These committees typically fall into one of three categories: Independent expenditure committees, 529s or political action committees. These entities have separate bank accounts, reporting requirements and boards which typically include the chamber CEO and several board members. Tahoe Chamber has initiated 2014 candidate endorsements through our newly formed Candidate Endorsement Committee (CEC)and also formed a California Independent Expenditure Committee (IEC).

The CEC is comprised of eight individuals who have volunteered an inordinate amount of time to develop a process they believe is fair to all concerned. The IEC is comprised of five community leaders who are raising funds separately from the Candidate Endorsement Committee. A listing of these committees can be found online and the work of the IEC online, too. If you are interested in serving on either of these committees, please contact me.

Prior to forming the CEC or IEC our pre-existing Government Affairs Committee (GAC) developed the Tahoe Future A South Shore Community Vision 2020, which can be found here.This document guides the GAC’s support or opposition of ballot measures, legislation and initiatives and it now provides the foundation upon which candidates are being questioned and measured by the Candidate Endorsement Committee (CEC).

The candidate endorsement process:

The CEC is focused on local California races. Candidates are being evaluated for LTCC, STPUD, City Council and El Dorado County District 5 Supervisor. Endorsement recommendations will be provided to the board by the CEC. The board will vote at their regularly scheduled open meetings on whether to accept the slate suggested by the CEC. Endorsements will be provided to the media and highlighted in chamber publications.

All candidates have an opportunity to be evaluated – TRUE

Every candidate, even those running unopposed, were sent a letter by the CEC Chair inviting them to seek an endorsement. All candidates will be evaluated irrespective of whether they seek an endorsement. Candidates can choose to what extent they engage in the process. Research will include:

o Questionnaire answers

o Websites and collateral materials

o Interviews

o Public forums (City Council forum is Sept. 10)

o Past voting records

o Ability to collaborate and affect positive change

o Alignment with Tahoe Future Vision 2020

o Background checks

Tahoe Chamber has solicited specific candidates to endorse – FALSE

TahoeChamber encourages civic engagement through its Leadership Lake Tahoe program. Leadership participants are encouraged to join service organizations, serve on commissions, volunteer for a nonprofit, coach youth sports and consider running for office. This year we are pleased that five graduates from the 2003 [Nancy McDermid], 2006 [Austin Sass], 2012 [Jeff Cowen] and 2014 [Matt Palacio and Shane Romsos] classes are running for four different offices. The fact that they are graduates from this program in no way guarantees them an endorsement from the CEC. It does however provide the community assurances that the graduates have been exposed to many facets of the South Shore contributing to their knowledge base.

The review of candidates is not fair or transparent – FALSE

The CEC continues to evolve and is committed to making this process fair and consistent. Every candidate is being scored using the same grade sheet and process related to Tahoe Future 2020. All questionnaire answers (with the exception of personal information) and their scores will be posted on the Tahoe Chamber website whether or not the graduates sought an endorsement.

Tahoe Chamber will publish Social Security numbers or background information – FALSE

We would never publish sensitive information and will ensure that all personal information is protected. Only the chamber CEO will handle personal information. Candidates may provide their Social Security number as it ensures the background check doesn’t retrieve negative information associated with another individual. (For example, one candidate background check picked up several other individuals of the same name with arrest records). Chamber CEO will provide the CEC with a pass or fail on background checks and provide no details.

The campaign process:

The Independent Expenditure Committee (IEC) is raising funds independently from the CEC and the candidates. It cannot by law coordinate efforts with any of the candidate’s campaign committees. Any individual or business can contribute funds to the IEC. The donor cannot dictate to which candidate(s) their funds support. The IEC will conduct its own research including taking into account which candidates the CEC recommends, but it is under no obligation to support those candidates.

The IEC will purchase ads or publish direct mail – TRUE

The purpose of the IEC is to engage in the political process to educate voters on why it believes a particular candidate(s) is a good choice for our community.

Some candidates will be given money – FALSE

The IEC cannot contribute funds directly to a candidate or their campaign committee. Any funds expended must be done independently.

I hope this overview is helpful in highlighting our process that in reality is no different than that being undertaken by myriad organizations across this great nation given our constitutionally protected rights. Materials and information will be updated on the aforementioned websites regularly and additional information provided in the upcoming issue of our Business Review.

We trust that you will value the labor of many volunteers in their effort to provide you with credible information on which to base your voting decisions.

Sincerely,

B Gorman, president/CEO Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce

To the community,

Comcast, my father’s Internet provider, has illegally slowed Internet speeds to chosen users. Net-neutrality may sound boring, but it’s not. Soon you may be the target of discrimination, too. How often are you online? Our way of life depends on it.

Concerned about these and other developments the Internet industry, I wrote to Congressman [Tom] McClintock, I asked him to support proposed FCC rule changes that would regulate the Internet more like a public utility. I want the Internet managed not solely for a profit, but as an essential public good. My daughter’s future depends on it.

Mr. McClintock responded that he strongly opposes government regulation that limits markets.

That argument sounds principled and traditionally all-American, but it isn’t. Our government was an innovation founded explicitly to support the power of people to stand against the tyranny of concentrated power. If commercial profits were the only worthy goal, we would not today have the free and open communication, education or transportation systems that underpin the American way of life.

Frustrated with McClintock’s extremist position, I did a little (Internet) research.

This year, Internet companies have donated nearly $9 million to Congress. In the last election, it cost, on average, $1.6 million to win a House seat. Rep. McClintock spent $5.69 per vote in our area, and the computer/Internet sector was one of Mr. McClintock’s top donors.

This experience illustrates two important points:
1. The Internet is fundamental to our access to information — and so power — and it must be regulated as a public good. Express your American values. Show your support for a fair and open Internet.
2. Rep. McClintock is up for re-election this fall. Though congressional approval ratings are down to 9 percent, we are likely to do what we always do — re-elect the (monied) incumbent. Do your research. Then vote your real interests.

Bonnie Turnbull, South Lake Tahoe

To the community,

The Tahoe Heritage Foundation and all of us at the Tallac Historic Site would like to thank these generous donors for their contributions to the Great Gatsby Festival’s silent auction. Money received from the auction goes directly back to the restoration and preservation of the estates on the Tallac Historic Site.

Businesses: Anderson Bike Rental, ARTrageous Framing, Base Camp Pizza Co., Bear’s Den, Bridgetender Bar and Restaurant, Buster Edwards ~ Blacksmith, Cakes by the Lake, Camp Richardson Corral, Carriage Rides, The Firkin & Fox, Freshies, Hard Rock, Heavenly Mountain Resort, Inn by the Lake, Joyce Gebo, Kings Beverage, Lake Tahoe Cruises, Lake Tahoe Golf Course, Magic Carpet Golf, Meeks Lumber & Hardware, Ski Run Boat Co., Tahoe Donner Ski Area, Tahoe Heritage Foundation, Tahoe Tallac Association, Tep’s Villa Roma, Thornburg, Bob Sierra View Acoustic Music, TruValue (Scottys), and Woodwind Sailing Cruises.

Sincerely,

Tami Africa, assistant site director Tallac Historic Site

By Larry Weitzman

Item No. 3 on the consent calendar at the Aug. 26 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors meeting demonstrates why the county needs new top management. It was a small item asking for three $20,000 checks, one to the city of Placerville, one to the Cameron Park CSD and a third to the El Dorado Hills CSD – all for operational costs in running their public pools or in the case of EDHCSD for a shade structure.

There were a couple problems with the CAO Terri Daly’s request. The budget from June 12 that approved the Placerville appropriation was absent for the CPCSD and the EDHCSD. Without a budget appropriation, you can’t ask for the check.

Larry Weitzman

On top of that problem Daly didn’t follow the appropriate process of going to the Recreation Committee for approval. But, notwithstanding the problems that Daly thought she could slide through by using the consent calendar, there were constituents who spoke up for Daly (benefactors of her largess) who thought what she was doing for them was wonderful. Hey, if someone wanted to give me a new $20,000 car, I would sing his or her praises, too. We have “procedures, policies and processes” in operating a government (thank you BOS member Norma Santiago for those words) and they are to be followed as so strongly pointed out by Supervisor Brian Veerkamp, saying that the county is looking at a $12 million to $17 million short fall next year and the county’s No. 1 priority is public safety (not recreation).

When she was CAO of Amador County, Daly used the consent calendar for approval of a lease modification that cost Amador County $20 million in an unnecessary grossly expensive lease.

At the same BOS meeting during a closed session action, the acting IT director was removed because she lacked the minimum qualifications. Yes, you guessed it, she was a Terry Daly appointment to a job that pays about $140,000 a year. In an interesting twist, Daly tries to turn this mistake of hers into a positive by an email sent by Daly that said the following. Daly didn’t say the BOS fired the acting IT director because she wasn’t qualified but said, “The BOS reported out last evening that the acting IT director is returning to the CAO’s office as a principal analyst (a $110,000 a year job) … and thanked her for her work in IT … I am excited to have her back with us ….”

Since she wasn’t qualified, I wonder about the quality of her work. Is she even qualified as an analyst as it is questionable if she even has a four-year college degree.

But perhaps there is something more insidious going on. There is a rumor that Daly is wrangling for a long term, no cut contract. And the rumor comes from a reliable source, so the gist of it might very well be true. And the contract idea could have a quid pro quo. In other words, you get me a contract and I’ll get you a job (with such a contract the BOS couldn’t do anything about who Daly hires or fires). But it would take three supervisors to make such a contract happen. And this is where it gets dicey. Another supervisor will be elected on Sept. 9 to fill the vacant seat of District II and that vote could be critical.

I interviewed every candidate running for a supervisorial seat whether it is District II, IV or V to ask them one question, would they vote yes or no to a long term, no cut CAO contract at her $200,000 plus salary? When explained the ramifications of abdicating most of their power to the CAO and perhaps their responsibility to their constituents, they all agreed they would not vote for such a thing, except for Sue Novasel who was non-committal and Jennifer Nutting as explained below.

Mike Rinalli, District IV candidate, in an interview perhaps said it best without recognizing the possible quid pro quo, “Why would I work so hard to be elected a supervisor and then abdicate most of my power to the CAO.”

The CAO has the power to hire and fire most county employees and the only check on the CAO is the right to fire her at will. You could still fire her, but if there were three years left on a contract, it would cost the county over $600,000 to do so. All of these conversations were long, 15 minutes or more to discuss the question and to distill their answers.

District II supervisorial candidates said the following among other things. Chris Amaral said “absolutely not, no long-term contracts.” Shiva Frentzen also said essentially the same thing, “no, no long-term contracts.”

Claire McNeal seems to understand the question the best, recognizing this could be a quid pro quo with shenanigans involved and just said two words “No way.” Those two words where the first thing she said, no explanations as to such a contract’s ramifications were necessary. She got it immediately.

George Turnboo said such a contract “is not gonna happen, the BOS are the elected and need control. The buck stops with them.”

Dave Pratt wasn’t quite as strong in his opinion, saying he would have to study such a contract in detail (most of the candidates interviewed said the same thing about the potential contract described). In Pratt’s words as to such a contract he said he “doubts he would agree to such a contract.”
Jennifer Nutting was called twice with clear messages left on her voicemail, but she refused to return the calls. My message said I would like to ask just this one question, but her refusal to call back makes her unacceptable as a candidate. She also would not allow herself to be interviewed by the Mountain Democrat as well. Hiding from the press and refusing to answer questions (she also never appeared at any candidate forum) disqualifies her as a candidate. It is not the American way.

There are three other candidates, Howard Penn for District IV responded by saying, “Very unlikely and there would have to be compelling reasons for such a contract, but as to a yes or no, it would be no.” Penn and I had the longest conversation, seemingly discussing everything under the sun for over 100 minutes, but only perhaps spending about 15 minutes on the subject question.

In District 5, the candidates showed a real dichotomy in that Kenny Curtzwiler said, “Certainly no action should be taken until after the election. They better not tie my hands.”

Novasel was noncommittal, giving a political answer by saying, “I couldn’t vote on something I don’t know about.” While I tried to explain the hypothetical details, Novasel was still noncommittal.

There are obvious problems in the administration of EDC. And they are located right at the top. Voters please look at and listen to all the supervisorial candidates carefully. It has never been more critical. Ask questions and demand straight answers. You are placing a lot of trust into three people. They will be lawmakers with the power to spend hundreds of millions of dollars.

Larry Weitzman is a resident of Rescue.

To the community,

Soroptimist International of South Lake Tahoe was the Adopt A Day of Nourishment sponsor for Bread & Broth’s dinner Aug. 25.

On behalf of her fellow AAD sponsor volunteer crew members, Sue Novasel explained the organization’s support of the B&B program: “Soroptimists are concerned about hunger in our local community and will continue to focus on this most important issue. We are honored to serve our community members in need.”

Bread & Broth would like to thank the Soroptimist International of South Lake Tahoe for the $250 donation, which fed over 105 dinner guests. One of the Soroptimist’s missions is to improve the lives of women and girls in their local community. By hosting the evening’s dinner, Soroptimist helped to feed an increasing number of those in need in our South Shore community, many of which are women who are elderly, in need of employment, raising young children or are homeless.

Joining Novasel as AAD sponsor volunteers were fellow Soroptimist members Pam Barrett, Mickey Madden, Julie Cathie and Brenda Knox. Also volunteering in the capacity as both Soroptimist members and B&B fourth week crew cooks were Cindy Archer, Soroptimist president, and Vicki Gonzales.

B&B is fortunate to work in partnership with the Soroptimist International of South Lake Tahoe members to improve the lives of those in our community. To help B&B as a donor or sponsor, contact me at 530.542.2876 or carolsgerard@aol.com.

Carol Gerard, Bread & Broth

Publisher’s note: The following letter was sent to Lukins Brothers Water Company customers on Aug. 28. It is a similar message other water districts in the Lake Tahoe Basin are sending to customers.
Dear Customers,

Lukins Brothers Water Company, Inc. would like to thank you for your continued efforts in conserving water. All of your voluntary efforts have contributed to an overall reduction in water consumption of 6 percent between June/July 2013 and June/July 2014. In order to help manage limited resources during current drought conditions, the California Public Utilities Commission has ordered Lukins Brothers Water Company Inc. to notify its customers of the State Water Resources Control Board’s (State Board) recent adoption of emergency regulations for statewide urban water conservation, including mandatory restrictions and potential fines for violations of the State Board’s regulations. Your continued cooperation and support is needed to ensure reliable supplies of water for your comfort and necessary use.

The State Board has determined that the following water use activities by Lukins Brothers Water Company customers are not allowed:

1. Watering outdoor landscapes in a way that causes water to “runoff” onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots, or structures.

2. Washing a vehicle with a hose without a shut-off nozzle or other device that will immediately stop the flow of water when not in use.

3. Using drinking water to wash driveways and sidewalks.

4. Using drinking water in a fountain or other decorative water feature, except where the water is recirculated.

Violation of any of these four prohibited or restricted water use activities may be punished by a fine of up to $500 for each day in which the violation occurs.

Please note that such fines are a last resort and that they may be assessed only by local law enforcement authorities. Lukins Brothers Water Company would like to thank its customers who have voluntarily conserved water up to this point and asks that you continue these efforts and comply with the State Board’s new restrictions on outdoor water use.

In addition to the four prohibited activities listed above, the State Board’s new regulations require Lukins Brothers Water Company to inform their customers that they must limit outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with drinking water to no more than two days per week. Lukins Brothers Water Company amended watering schedule and guidelines is as follows:

• Even addresses: Monday and Thursday
• Odd addresses: Tuesday and Friday
• Irrigation watering must be done before 7am or after 7pm.
• Limit watering to no more than 10 minutes per sprinkler zone.
• No watering on weekends.

We also recommend that you adjust your sprinklers to prevent any runoff. Please do not water continually for more than an hour.
Further information may be obtained from Lukins Brothers Water Company’s local business office at 530.541.2606 or by visiting our website.

Again, Lukins Brothers Water Company wants to thank you in advance for helping us manage what has become the most serious drought in California’s history.

Jennifer Lukins

Publisher’s note: This letter was submitted to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors on Aug. 26, 2014.

Dear Board Members:

I would like this item continued until after the budget hearings.

Joe Harn

A $20,000 appropriation was included in the budget that was adopted in June for the Placerville Pool. There is NOT a $60,000 appropriation in the budget for these three proposed MOUs. Your board will need to modify the budget in order for these MOUs to be lawful.

Of far greater concern is the CAO’s budget forecast for 2015-16. It indicates a $12 million problem for the general fund in 2015-16. Further, the $12 million shortfall is based on the assumption that the Fenix implementation will save the general fund $5 million in 2015-16. At this time, I do not believe that this is a reasonable assumption.

Your board and the CAO need to start making very difficult decisions now to avoid a huge budget problem next summer. If you have any questions, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Joe Harn, auditor-controller

Publisher’s note: This editorial is from the Aug. 21, 2014, San Jose Mercury News.

Fifty years ago, the rapidly subsiding groundwater throughout the West brought urgent calls for action. Arizona responded. So did Colorado, Oregon, Texas — yes, Texas — and others. But not California. It is the only western state that does not have a groundwater management program.

Now California is paying a heavy price for failing to limit pumping of groundwater, which supplies 60 percent of the state’s water, as it does diverting water from rivers. Corporate agriculture landowners still resist it, but more and more farmers are acknowledging that the rate of pumping has become alarming.

California needs to require local water agencies to establish and enforce groundwater management plans so that water taken out doesn’t exceed what is naturally replenished. Sen. Fran Pavley’s SB1168 and Assemblyman Roger Dickinson’s parallel AB 1739 would do this, giving agencies until 2020 to adopt plans and empowering the state to step in if they don’t. The legislation should become law. It may be more important to the state than Gov. Jerry Brown’s $7 billion water bond.

Read the whole story

By Sara Scribner, Slate

A young poet, enough of a rising star to be profiled in the New York Times magazine, posts a poem called “The Rape Joke.” It begins, “The rape joke is that you were 19 years old. The rape joke is that he was your boyfriend.” It is about as intense and intimate as an online post can get. In the magazine article, the poet’s mother reads the poem, but it is the comment thread that makes the mother cry. “Do you see what these people were saying about you?” her mother asked. “Mom, it’s OK,” the writer, Patricia Lockwood, said. “It’s just the Internet.”

Internet cruelty is nothing new. It might only surprise children and the uninitiated, who dip into the public sphere for the first time and are shocked by what comes back at them. But Lockwood’s response reveals a generational shift. Her mother calls the commentators “people.” Lockwood identifies them as “the Internet,” a strange hybrid of human and computer, innately vicious but also ubiquitous, phenomena to be ignored.

Others have a more difficult time ignoring it.

After reaching out to her father’s mourning fans, Robin Williams’ daughter Zelda became a target of sadistic trolls — piling trauma upon trauma. She closed her Instagram account and shut down her Twitter feed. A budding journalist who had just had one of her first stories posted on her university newspaper’s website was so stunned by the comments that she decided to find another line of work. A young writer in New York City who was photographed trying to make ends meet by hauling his typewriter to the High Line and busking stories was savaged online. (He ended up writing an article about his ordeal called “I Am an Object of Internet Ridicule, Ask Me Anything.”)

The list of examples seems endless, and there doesn’t seem to be a single space online that is free from overblown antagonistic invective. Once, when speaking to an almost impossibly sweet colleague, I voiced some concerns about my son’s eating habits. She told me to post on an online forum for moms. Seemed like a good idea at the time. The flowing curlicues and sweet-pea-pink background of the site’s design must have lulled me into some kind of trance, so the vitriol that came back was a shock. Internet moms are angry, too, real angry. And they just hate you.

Read the whole story

By Larry Weitzman

Some people take their losses and move on, others are vindictive. Sometimes when you want retribution and revenge after a loss, your actions are not only spiteful and selfish, but costly. That can be said for termed-out El Dorado County Board of Supervisor Ron Briggs who will lose his $77,000 a year job at the end of the year.
Briggs, knowing he will soon be out of a job, made a run for another political office this past June — for EDC tax-collector/treasurer. He lost decisively.

So what does Briggs do? First, he attempts to eliminate the tax collector’s office, along with other non-state mandated elected offices such as the all important controller-auditor’s office from being elected to becoming appointed. Hey, if you can’t win the election, maybe you can eliminate the elected office and get the appointment. (There is a Charter provision that prevents for one year elected officials from receiving such an appointment, but after a year it would be legal). It would also be a big raise in salary for Briggs. The idea of changing the office from elected to appointed is still ongoing. It is under consideration by the Charter Review Committee as I write this column. It is an attempt to disenfranchise the voters of El Dorado County among other things and the balancing act.

And such a move would be a huge power grab by the “never been elected to anything” appointed bureaucrat Terri Daly, the county CAO, as she would have the power of such an appointment according to other changes she wants in the charter.

Actually, the approximately $140,000 treasurer’s salary is a bit low for an experienced CPA. In fact in what could be a vindictive move by Briggs, it was Briggs who sponsored the move to lower the salaries of certain elected department heads, including his opponent in the election he lost. But the upshot of this story is that at the same time, the Board of Supervisors recently gave a huge 15 percent raise to all other county employees (except deputy sheriff’s). Briggs reasoning certainly can’t be he is saving the county money, as this countywide raise is certain to cost tens of millions of dollars annually. There are about 1,400 county employees who received this giant raise. And the BOS, Briggs included, just approved a raise for the part-time indigent legal defense panel of 10 percent. It was an annual increase of about $75,000 in their total monthly retainer (it went up about $600 a month for each of the panel of 10) whether they work or not (the retainer is just a bit more than $6,500 a month, more on this issue in another column). It is even more pay then received by some fulltime public defenders. The salary cut for the auditor and tax collector was purely vindictive. You see, the incentives he cut from the current auditor-controller and tax collector/treasurer would not have affected Briggs if he had been fortunate enough to have won the election, as he is not a CPA and not even qualified to sit for the exam. But there is a whole lot more to this.

In another vindictive, selfish move, Briggs has proposed an ordinance that would require that all monetary transactions involving EDC be payable to or name solely the County of El Dorado on the financial instrument period, not the Building Department of El Dorado County or Tax Collector or County Recorder or if a person is actually named, like William Shultz, recorder. Briggs probably thinks his adversary in the election had a name recognition advantage in the election. But what is worse is that his ordinance would prohibit the negotiating any check by the county with a name on the check such as Raffety, Schultz or another department head or the department itself. Briggs speciously thinks perhaps there is a safety issue as if the named person might steal a check.

There are three very serious problems with Briggs’ vindictive thinking. First, in all the years Raffety has been the tax collector and Shultz has been the county recorder, there has never been a problem with this issue. In other words, nothing is broken. Second, if a check were not made out exactly to EDC and had a department name or another department head’s name on it, per the proposed policy, it would not be negotiable by the county. Think of all the computer generated, pre programmed property tax checks from homeowners’ escrow accounts or checks from title companies to record deeds that would have to be returned and the tax penalty, bookkeeping nightmare that would ensue. Even bigger nightmares would occur for deeds not getting recorded timely because of an improperly made out check. It would make the rollout of Obamacare look like child’s play. Those escrow holders will also be saddled with an expensive reprogramming. Many won’t do it at all.

And thirdly, as it happens, a California code section covering the payment of property taxes (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 2611.6 (h)) requires that instructions on all tax bills with respect to tendering property tax payments must include the NAME (emphasis added) and mailing address of the TAX COLLECTOR (again emphasis added). So at least two things will happen anyway. One, the taxpayers who pay personal and real property tax will see who the tax collector is (which the elimination thereof appears to be the sole purpose of Briggs’ ill thought out and ill advised ordinance) and two, it will cause confusion as to how to make out the check.

Under this proposed policy, any checks that are not made out to EDC will supposedly have to be returned. One other problem with eliminating the tax collector’s name is that with the tax collector’s name on the check it is another safeguard to ensure proper credit to the county property tax rolls for the taxpayer.
This entire proposal saddles the board with a needless waste of valuable time regarding this ridiculous proposal. And for what? Because he lost the election, an elected position he wasn’t even qualified to run for pursuant to the Robert Citron law (Government Code Section 27000.7) created in 1998 to prevent another Orange County bankruptcy.

Larry Weitzman is a resident of Rescue.