Thursday, June 29, 2006

Somethin' Ain't Addin' Up -- The Bumpus Factor

Since my original post concerning the park and rec money that the Los Osos Community Pool Association is asking to be transferred to the county, I've seen something interesting come up a few times in the comments section, and I don't know what it is... something about someone named Bumpus that bequeathed $100,000, or something like that, to the LO park/rec fund.

I'm not familiar with that. If someone could give me the details in the comments section, I sure would appreciate it. Is that in a different account, or what?

The reason I'm interested, is because if that's true -- if Bumpus did bequeath $100K to the park and rec fund, then somethin' ain't addin' up.

According to Will Clemens, Department Administrator for SLO County Public Works, the $50 assessment by the Supervisors in 1996 raised about $275,000. And that sounds about right. There are about 5,000 properties in Los Osos, $50 x 5,000 = $250,000 (thank God it's simple math). So at least that's in the ball park of the $264,838 mentioned in the LOCPA e-mail.

However, the LOCPA figure leaves the ball park in a hurry when we mix in Bumpus' alleged generous gift. All of a sudden, if, indeed, there was another $100k added, the Los Osos park and rec fund should have about $375,000-plus-interest ($275,000 from the 1996 county assessment, and $100K from my man Bumpus.) And that interest -- and I'll be conservative here, because I'm bad at math -- should add at least another $25,000 to that, shouldn't it? So, now we're looking at about $400,000.

Let's see here... where's my calculator:

$400,000
- $264,838
- - - - - - - -
$185,162

I have a question. If Bumpus' gift was in the park and rec account, then what in the hell happened to the $185,162?

It sure didn't go into their web site.

###

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Tribune, You F-d Up, You Trusted Nash-Karner

[Warning: The following post is rated R. If adult language offends you, please do not read, and click here instead.]

One of my all-time, favorite screenplays is Animal House... so many great lines. And one of those great lines that I think of often in the context of Los Osos comes when, after a raucous road trip, Flounder is sobbing next to his brother's once-pristine Lincoln Continental, that is now trashed, and Otter walks up to him, slaps him on the back, and says, "You fucked up. You trusted us."

I see it all the time -- that great, great line applies to so many people and so many agencies, when it comes to Los Osos. And I hate to keep bringing up her name, but in all of those instances, the person they trusted was ubiquitous Los Osos resident, Pandora Nash-Karner.

For examples:

  • The residents of Los Osos fucked up and trusted her in 1998 when she, as marketing director for the Solution Group, told them that her plan would be, "better, cheaper, faster" with a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75," when she knew it wasn't going to be any of those.

  • The California Coastal Commission fucked up and trusted her in 2001 when she told them, as a CSD Director, that there was a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos that any sewer plant in the community must also double as a centrally located "recreational asset," when there is absolutely no documentation whatsoever that supports that extraordinary claim (by the way, I don't see how that doesn't constitute fraud... on a massive scale).

  • Anyone that voted against the recall fucked up and trusted her when she said that Tri-W was selected "primarily" because of "reduced pumping costs," and that the $2.3 million in park amenities included in the Tri-W sewer plant were "added by the California Coastal Commission." (Senior Coastal Commission staff member, Steve Monowitz, would later tell me, "It galls me when they say we added the amenities.")

  • The Bay News fucked up and trusted her, well, actually her husband, Gary Karner, when they published an opinion piece last year with his name attached to it (but it's safe to assume, it first had to meet with Nash-Karner's approval. Anyone that's followed this story closely over the last ten years, like I have, knows who wears the pants in that household) that said the Questa Study -- the study that accurately predicted that her "better, cheaper, faster" "Pandoraland" -- as radio host Dave Congalton called it -- wasn't going to work in Los Osos -- was conducted in 1999, when they knew full well that it was conducted in 1998 -- a full five months before the election that formed the LOCSD on the back of that "better, cheaper, faster" plan.

    And, now, poor Trib reporter, Abraham Hyatt, is the latest person who fucked up when he trusted Nash-Karner.

    In his June 27, story -- Los Osos lets pool funds soak up interest -- Hyatt writes:

    "Los Osos property owners paid the ($260,000 earmarked for a community pool) to the county through a tax they approved in 1996. The county then transferred the funds to the district when it was formed by voters in 1998."

    He wrote that because in a recent e-mail from the Board of Directors of the Los Osos Community Pool Association, with Pandora Nash-Karner as president, it reads:

    "... in November 1996, Los Osos residents voted to have SLO County assess each property owner $40.00 for a swimming pool. The item passed and the money was collected..."

    That is a typical Nash-Karner lie. (I've witnessed them for over ten years, now, and they jump out at me these days. I can spot them in a second.) It's not even close to being accurate, but there it is, printed in the Trib, for all regulators to see and believe, and for all of Los Osos to become even more confused than they already are, thanks, in large part, to Nash-Karner's marketing efforts.

    What makes that line from the LOCPA Board of Directors, with Nash-Karner as president, a blatant lie? Two tiny, little details. First, the assessment vote referred to in that e-mail didn't happen in 1996. It happened in 1997. It was called Measure D-97. And it didn't "pass" as Nash-Karner would have you, and Hyatt, believe. Nope. It failed. Yep, failed.

    However, what actually happened in July of 1996 is very, very interesting. According to Will Clemens, of the SLO County Public Works Department, that's when county Supervisors, following a lobbying effort by the community group, South Bay Community Pool Association, led by Nash-Karner, approved an ordinance that called for a one-time, $50 assessment on Los Osos property owners for "recreational services" in Los Osos.

    "That assessment raised about $275,000, and could have been used for any type of parks and recreation services in Los Osos, not just a pool," Clemens told me.

    However, in November 1996, California voters passed Proposition 218, a ballot measure that required a public vote on any new assessments on property taxes. The next year, in June 1997, Los Osos voters shot down Measure D-97, an assessment that would have added $40 a year to an individual homeowner's property taxes in Los Osos, specifically for a public pool.

    Incidentally, that 1997 election was also the same election that saw the failure of Measure E-97. That measure would have assessed property owners in Los Osos $10 a year for "recreational services."

    It seems, in all fairness, following the 1997 election, the $275,000 that was assessed Los Osos property owners in 1996 for "recreational services" that they didn't want to pay for after all, should have been returned by the County immediately to the property owners in Los Osos. It wasn't. And now, Nash-Karner is claiming that money can only be used for a pool, which, true to form, is not accurate... of course.

    In the LOCPA e-mail, it says, "For over a decade Los Osos residents have wanted a swimming pool." Another lie. If Los Osos voters wanted a swimming pool for over a decade, then why did D-97 fail?

    In a letter dated, October 19, 2005, Karol Vogt, Director, Los Osos Community Pool Association, and a partner in the law firm, Vogt and Drayton, writes, "Several years ago Los Osos voters approved a property assessment to build a community swimming pool. Based on that election, an assessment took place and money was collected."

    Apparently, we can add Vogt to the list of people that fucked up and trusted Nash-Karner.

    Three years after those two public recreation measures failed, Nash-Karner and former CSD General Manager, Bruce Buel convinced the California Coastal Commission in 2001, through a series of phone calls, according to Commission staff, that there was a "strongly held community value" that any sewer plant in Los Osos must also double as a "recreational asset."

    A Coastal Commission document states, "... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected because they did not accomplish the project objectives for centrally located community amenities."
    [ page 89 ]

    The community amenities, that included an amphitheater, dog park, and tot lot, in the Tri-W sewer plant would end up totaling $2.3 million.

    Included in the LOCPA e-mail is this line, "...the LOCSD has no way to raise money for parks."

    Steve Monowitz, senior staff member for the Coastal Commission, recently told me in a phone interview, "It was inappropriate of me to rely on members of the Solution Group to determine community values in Los Osos." Nash-Karner and Gary Karner formed the Solution Group.

    According to news reports, Nash-Karner, a current SLO County Parks Commissioner, aggressively lobbied for the passage of both public recreation measures in 1997. They both failed. Yet, nine years later, in 2006, an official e-mail from the Board of Directors of the LOCPA, with Nash-Karner as president, states, "Los Osos residents voted to have SLO County assess each property owner $40.00 for a swimming pool."

    That is a lie.

    As marketing director for Save the Dream, Nash-Karner coined the phrase, "Trust the Truth."

    In an e-mail to the LOCPA, SewerWatch wrote:

      Hello Los Osos Community Pool Association,

      I'm a freelance writer researching a story on Los Osos, and I was hoping you could answer two quick questions regarding your e-mail below.

      In the e-mail it says:

      "However, in November 1996, Los Osos residents voted to have SLO County assess each property owner $40.00 for a swimming pool. The item passed and the money was collected..."

      1) Could you please give me the name of the measure (D-96... or something like that) that was passed by Los Osos voters in 1996?

      and

      2) Could you please supply me with the names of the Board of Directors on the LOCPA?


    I have yet to receive a reply.

    When it comes to all things Los Osos, no one's name comes up as often as Nash-Karner's (a distant second would be her husband, Gary Karner).

    Her name is associated with:

    • Los Osos Community Advisory Council: 1994
    • The Vision Statement: 1995
    • South Bay Community Pool Association: 1997
    • The Solution Group (marketing director): 1997 - 1998
    • LOCSD Board Director (number one vote-getter): 1999 - 2001
    • SLO County Parks Commissioner: 1991 - present
    • Save the Dream (marketing director): 2005
    • Taxpayer's Watch: 2005 - present (in a kinda-sorta, shakey, behind-the-scenes way)
    • Los Osos Community Pool Association: Present


    In the e-mail from LOCPA, it reads, "PLEASE REQUEST THE LOCSD IMMEDIATELY TRANSFER THE MONEY TO SLO COUNTY PARKS IN ORDER TO PROTECT OUR POOL MONEY."

    Nash-Karner is a current SLO County Parks Commissioner.

    She also led a lobbying campaign three days after the recall election last September, demanding that the Regional Water Quality Control Board begin fining the LOCSD and individual property owners in Los Osos.

    Shortly after the recall election, I read a comment on Ann Calhoun's great blog that called for Nash-Karner to "cease and desist" her marketing efforts in Los Osos.

    Without doubt, that would immediately pave the way to healing Los Osos.

    - - -

    Here's the official e-mail from the LOCPA Board of Directors:

    Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 6:26 PM
    Subject: Please help ASAP - $264,838.00 for Los Osos Poll (sic) in jeopardy!!!

    HELP SAVE THE LOS OSOS SWIMMING POOL MONEY!!!

    The LOCSD has transferred money specifically collected for a swimming pool into their bank account. We are very concerned the money will be spent for items not related to the pool.

    PLEASE!!!  Attend the LOCSD meeting, Thursday, June 29th, South Bay Community Center
    2180 Palisades Avenue, Los Osos; Time:  7:00 PM (The LOCSD agenda has not been posted yet and the time may change)

    PLEASE REQUEST THE LOCSD IMMEDIATELY TRANSFER THE MONEY TO SLO COUNTY PARKS IN ORDER TO PROTECT OUR POOL MONEY.

    Details and history below -- documentation attached:

    Open letter to Los Osos -- please forward to your friends

    For over a decade Los Osos residents have wanted a swimming pool. Numerous fundraisers were held during the 90s and money was raised to go toward a swimming pool. That money is safe in a trust account and in CDs, and in the SLO County Community Foundation.

    However, in November 1996, Los Osos residents voted to have SLO County assess each property owner $40.00 for a swimming pool. The item passed and the money was collected and held in the County until the LOCSD was formed in November 1998. In 2000, the Pool Money was transferred to the LOCSD and the Board of Directors voted unanimously to place the Pool Money into a separate account restricted from ALL uses except a future swimming pool. This money has been in CDs with the interest growing in the account.

    Because the LOCSD has no way to raise money for parks or the design and construction of a swimming pool, the Los Osos Community Pool Association requested, on June  20, 2005, the LOCSD transfer the funds to SLO County Parks (See attached -- Transfer Request #1).

    The LOCSD promptly placed the item on their Consent Agenda to approve the transfer. Unfortunately, the consent calendar was never heard and after the recall election the item was removed.

    On October 19, 2005, a second letter was sent to the LOCSD requesting the money be transferred to SLO County Parks (See Attached -- Transfer Request #2). The LOCSD never responded to this request.

    This past week, on June 21, 2006, the Interim General Manager of the LOCSD removed the Pool Money from its special account and transferred it to the LOCSD's account (See attached "Ltr Transferring Pool Money"). The money has now been deposited into the LOCSD's account. Currently the money is marked as "restricted" however the restriction could easily be removed and the money could be spent on items other than a swimming pool.

    PLEASE HELP in our efforts for a future pool in Los Osos. Attend the LOCSD meeting and speak during public comment. Request the LOCSD immediately transfer the money to County Parks. Pete Jenny, Manager of County Parks has guaranteed the money will be protected (plus its interest) for a future pool. (See both attached transfer letters for details).

    The reasons for transferring the money to County Parks are simple:
    1.  The SLO County Park Department has the jurisdiction, staff, expertise and the resources to pursue the design and building of a pool through available funding, grants and multiple public-private partnerships.
    2. The Park Department can use this money for matching funds for grant purposes.
    3. The Park Department's purpose is to provide facilities and opportunities for people to recreate.
    4.  A Swimming Pool (Aquatic Center) is specifically listed in the new Park & Rec Element currently being reviewed by the SLO County Planning Commission prior to it's going onto the Board of Supervisors later this year. (SewerWatch note: If Measure D-97 failed, why is an aquatic center "specifically listed in the new Park & Rec Element currently being reviewed by the SLO County Planning Commission?" That doesn't make any sense.)
    5. If the LOCSD is dissolved or goes bankrupt the money will probably be lost.
    6. If the LOCSD spends this money they have no way to repay it and the money will be lost.

    The LOCSD states they can get higher interest in the combined account than in a long-term CD. The good news is that whatever the LOCSD can get in interest, the County can also. But more importantly, since the LOCSD is busy with many pressing issues they will not be able to focus on a swimming pool.

    PLEASE ATTEND ÷ SPEAK UP ÷ HELP SAVE OUR POOL MONEY!!!

    Thank you,

    The Board of Directors
    Los Osos Community Pool Association

    - - -

    On a related topic, on Friday, June 23, 2006, I sent the following e-mail to Darrin Polhemus of the Financial Assistance office of the State Water Resources Control Board. He has yet to reply:

    Hello Mr. Polhemus,

    I'm a freelance journalist researching a story on the Los Osos sewer situation, and I was hoping you could clarify something for me regarding the SRF loan that was designated for the Los Osos sewer project at Tri-W.

    First, please consider the following quotes:

    - Steve Monowitz, permit supervisor for the California Coastal Commission, wrote:

    "... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected because they did not accomplish the project objectives for centrally located community amenities."
    [ http://www.coastal.ca.gov/sc/W11b-8-2004.pdf / page 89 ]

    - The County of San Luis Obispo, in response to a Coastal Commission request for information regarding alternative sites, wrote:

    "One of those sites, the "Andre" site, like others located outside of the LOCSD service area, did not meet the objectives of the project, including affordability (SewerWatch note: that would prove to be false, according to CSD documents), proximity to the community, and opportunities for community assets (park and offices).

    - The 2001 Los Osos Community Services District, in the Final Project Report, wrote:

    “The size and location of the other sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity. The sites on the outskirts of town, could not deliver a community use area that was readily accessible to the majority of residents in the manner that a central location such as (Tri-W) could.”

    Since, according to the California Coastal Commission, the County of San Luis Obispo, and the 2001 Los Osos Community Services District, the "community amenities" are dictating the Tri-W site, and the project included, among other things, an amphitheater, public gardens, a dog park, and play fields, how was the LOCSD's Tri-W project not a $160 million park project that included a sewer system?

    How is that not a park project? I don't understand.

    And, if it is indeed a park project (and I don't see how it's not) -- then how could it be eligible for SRF money, when the SRF Policy says:

    "The SRF is intended to provide loans in perpetuity for construction of wastewater treatment and water recycling facilities..."?

    According to SRF policy, it seems the only portion of the project that should have been funded by the SRF loan was the "construction of wastewater treatment and water recycling facilities," yet the entire $160 million park project, including the $2.3 million in community amenities, along with the decorative "wave wall," and the buried facilities to create more parkland, etc. was, according to you, being financed by the SRF loan, before that loan was cancelled by the SWRQB shortly after the recall election last September.

    I trust you, as a fellow California taxpayer, can see my concern there.

    Last year, you told me that your office had made the decision to fund the $2.3 million worth of amenities in the Tri-W project because your office considers them to be "mitigation," since they were mentioned in the Coastal Development Permit for Tri-W, issued by the California Coastal Commission in 2004. However, if you were to call and speak with Mr. Monowitz, as I have, he would tell you that terming the amenities "mitigation" is not accurate.

    In fact, in 2002, the Coastal Commission required extensive mitigation for Tri-W because of the inclusion of the $2.3 million of "community amenities" in the project.

    In the document, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM MAJOR AMENDMENT NO. 3-01: Designation of the Los Osos Wastewater Treatment Facility Site, Monowitz writes:

    "The development of other public facility uses, such as the outdoor recreation uses and public amenities proposed for the site by the LOCSD, must be made contingent upon the adoption and implementation of an area wide program that will effectively protect the region’s sensitive habitat values as infill of sensitive habitats within the urban area occurs."

    He continues:

    "The loss of approximately 11.5 acres of degraded ESHA associated with the development of public facilities on the Tri-W site, as accommodated by the amendment, is inconsistent with the requirements of Coastal Act Section 30240 that prohibit the significant disruption of ESHA and limit development within ESHA to uses that are dependent upon the resources."

    And adds:

    "... the standards of the amendment appropriately focus on offsetting the loss of habitat on the Tri-W site by preserving significant amounts of similar habitat at an offsite location, as further discussed below.

    These standards have been developed specifically to address the biological impacts associated with the public facilities proposed by the LOCSD..." (Bolding is mine for emphasis.)

    In other words, the inclusion of the park required extensive mitigation. So, I'm very confused, as you can imagine.

    Two questions:

    1) How can something that requires "significant" mitigation, be considered mitigation?

    and,

    2) How is the Tri-W project not a $160 million park project, considering that the project includes an amphitheater, play fields, community gardens, public restroom, a public parking lot, off-leash dog-park, bike paths, and more, and also considering the fact that the park element of the project is dictating the Tri-W location according to the California Coastal Commission, the County of San Luis Obispo, and the early Los Osos Community Services District?

    Thank you for your time,
    Ron

    ###

  • Friday, June 09, 2006

    The Coastal Commission / SewerWatch Compromise

    SewerWatch has struck a deal with the staff of the California Coastal Commission.

    It goes like this: I have agreed to shelve my request that the Tri-W development permit be revoked now -- as in today -- and pursue it only if there is "an official determination by the CSD or a future successor to build the treatment plant at Tri-W," and, in return, Steve Monowitz, a senior staff member with the Commission, told me that if the Tri-W project does come back, I will be granted a hearing on my revocation request.

    "You deserve a hearing," Monowitz told me in a recent phone interview. "It looks like there may, indeed, have been some misrepresentation."

    The only bump in the road to my guaranteed hearing is a technicality. Commission regulations state:

    "Any person who did not have the opportunity to fully participate in the original permit proceeding by reason of the permit applicant's intentional inclusion of inaccurate information (bolding mine) or failure to provide adequate public notice as specified in Section 13105 may request revocation of a permit ...".

    "The permit applicant's intentional inclusion of inaccurate information?" Are you kidding me?

    As I wrote to Monowitz, "I'll be able to get around that for many, many, many, many documented reasons."

    He then added, "If you do have standing (meaning, I can show "intentional inclusion of inaccurate information," which I can, all over the place), and there is an official determination by the CSD or a future successor to build the treatment plant at Tri-W, your revocation request will be reported to the Coastal Commission at the next available hearing."

    My extremely tight argument for pursuing my extremely tight argument for revoking the Tri-W permit now -- even though it's a long shot that it will ever be needed in its current form anyway -- is that it is still in play. There is still a very vocal, and active group of "about 50 community members" in Los Osos that is fighting to get the defunct project back, and that continues to divide the community, and that continues to make it harder to clean water faster, at a location that actually has rationale behind its siting. So, I argue that if the permit was revoked now, and the no-rationale-behind-siting Tri-W location was officially off the table, Los Osos, for the most part, wouldn't have a choice but to row in the same direction, thus, cleaner-water-faster.

    Sound argument, eh?

    However, I agreed to the compromise because there's a very good chance that the current development permit is already irrelevant, and I didn't want to put Monowitz through the considerable amount of work it would require to handle the request. And, no one, and I mean no one, is more sympathetic towards Monowitz on that issue than I am.

    I find astonishing the amount of Monowitz's time that was wasted by the Solution Group/early Los Osos CSD. When I read through some of the volumes of documents that he has had to produce due to the careless and sloppy actions of the the Solution Group/early Los Osos CSD (I'll even lump in the loose and unnecessarily lengthy, revocation request that came from the Los Osos Technical Task Force in 2004, here), I feel so bad for him. I just sit there and shake my head as I read through that stuff... what a waste! (If I was Monowitz, I'd be pissed.) So, the last thing I want him to do is spend more time on Los Osos when it's a long shot that it will even be necessary.

    But, with my concession not to pursue the revocation now, my argument that forcing Los Osos to row in the same direction will lead to cleaner-water-faster, gets kicked to the side of the road. So, in an attempt to keep that excellent argument in play, I offer the following two memos:

    Memo to Taxpayer's Watch: First, stop stealing my ideas (SewerWatch -- Taxpayer's Watch... nice originality, guys), second, if you insist on continuing to waste everyone's time, and energy, and money by desperately and relentlessly fighting for Tri-W, you should probably know something right now -- if that ridiculous $160 million-park-project that you refer to as a "sewer project," ever comes back on the radar screen, I will instantly take Monowitz up on that hearing, and I will hit that no-rationale-behind-siting mess deeeeeep into the upper deck, on the very first pitch of the new game, and all of your efforts -- the call for fines, the entire dissolution process, your silly "letter writing campaigns," everything -- will be rattling around in the cheap seats after the very first pitch of the new game.

    Memo to Pandora Nash-Karner: Do you really want that to happen? Do you, as a former CSD Director and current member of the County Parks Commission, appointed by Shirley Bianchi in early 1999, really want me to show up in front of the California Coastal Commission, with a highly informed attorney in tow, and lay out exactly how a certain nonsensical "strongly held community value" got into an early version of the Vision Statement -- a document that not only has your name attached to it, but your husband's as well -- and then lay out how that "community value" was in the Vision Statement just long enough for it to get into the Final Project Report, and then lay out the consequences of that alleged "community value?"

    Do you want that, Pandora?

    Do you really want me to get into the details on why Coastal Commissioner, Dave Potter, called your little scheme "bait-and-switchy," while he's sitting 15 feet in front of me. That may not go so good for you, P. -- as a former CSD Director and current member of the County Parks Commission.

    Do you really want me to get into the details on how the proposed treatment facility location for your first terrible project, the ponding system -- the project that got you elected and the CSD formed -- just happened to be the exact same treatment facility location as your second terrible project, the Tri-W "sewer-park" -- a project that required 10-times less land?

    Do you really want me to breakdown for the Coastal Commission, in detail, how the siting criteria listed in the Final Project Report is a meaningless mess?

    Do you really want me to demonstrate how I have "standing," and then get in front of the Coastal Commission and lay all the above out, Pandora? Does Stan want that? Does Gordon want that? Does Bruce want that? Does Montgomery, Watson, Harza want that? If so, keep fighting.

    Because, I guarantee you, in the slim chance that the Tri-W plan ever comes back, that is exactly what is going to happen.

    P., you and your friends at Taxpayer's Watch need to think about what you're currently doing very carefully, because, the instant, and I mean nanosecond, that the Tri-W site officially comes back, if it comes back, I will take Steve up on that hearing, and everything that should have come out from 2001 - 2004, will come out.

    I also want you to keep something else in mind -- and I want you to follow this very closely -- when I asked Monowitz how he feels about State officials' decision to use the State Revolving Fund -- a public fund that is supposed to be used only for water quality issues in California -- to pay for the $2.3 million worth of park amenities proposed in your ridiculous ex-project, he laughed, and then said, "no comment."

    At the hearing, if needed, he'll comment on that, Pandora, current County Parks Commissioner, and he has already told me that he is none too happy with the fact that you have repeatedly said (and that I can document), "the Coastal Commission required the amenities." And he also said, "It looks like there may, indeed, have been some misrepresentation."

    Wow. I would enjoy, very much, discussing all of the above, in sourced-out detail, with the California Coastal Commission, and their brilliant staff... in a very public setting... with lots of media types around.

    My end of the bargain is to put my revocation request on the back-burner until, and if, Tri-W becomes relevant again.

    The Commission's staff end of the bargain is to give me a hearing when, and if, Tri-W becomes relevant again.

    Your choice, guys.

    ###