Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Woodbridge Sanitary District story needs rebuttal

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 6:02 am, Thu Oct 18, 2012.

I am responding to your cover story entitled "Grand Jury praises Woodbridge Sewer District for improvements," dated Thursday, Sept. 27. The article references a 2011 Grand Jury investigative report; WSD's September 2011 response; and the Grand Jury's June 2012 follow-up report.

Your article presents multiple falsehoods, which merit rebuttal and correction. Specifically, statements attributed to Mia Brown, the district's outside legal counsel, demand response.

Ms. Brown states, "The Grand Jury didn't find a smoking gun," and "It certainly was not what the initial complaint made it out to be." Yet the Grand Jury's investigation confirmed all but one of the allegations lodged against WSD. As quoted, "the Grand Jury found a lack of policies, procedures, Board oversight and mismanagement, including payroll fraud and fiscal mismanagement," and "records for plant operation and reporting purposes were falsified."

Ms. Brown further states, "We've responded to all of the allegations and implemented or have drafted forms (for procedures) in regards to everything recommended." Yet WSD's response lacked any external audit of its operations, nor was its response inclusive of any input, review and/or approval from its entire board of directors. Thus, lacking any accountability, WSD's response dismissed most allegations as being unfounded, or without admitting guilt, simply pledged to make improvements.

One such allegation by the Grand Jury states "Relatives were hired and paid more per hour than other district laborers." WSD's one-line response states, "The district's personnel manual does not allow for the hiring of relatives of present employees." Yet the General Manager's son posts on his LinkedIn profile of his WSD affiliation/experience of "oversight of daily plant operations," among several other organizational initiatives. This contradiction is but one of several anomalies in which WSD's response distorts the facts and truth.

Finally, Ms. Brown states, "The initial complaint was made by an unhappy individual." This seemingly dismisses the complaint as simply precipitated by some vendetta; the resulting Grand Jury investigation unwarranted; its findings erroneous; and WSD's management and operations as honest, transparent and in full compliance. Unfortunately, WSD's distortion of the truth makes it a poster child of an organization which continues to misuse and abuse our public trust.

Charles Stocker

Woodbrdge

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

Recent Comments

Posted 14 hours ago by Simon Birch.

article: Letter: Friend’s car was wrongfully tow…

Mike: The settings are supposed to allow replies up to 6 levels deep (reply to reply to reply, etc.). My apologies to everyone if this isn'…

More...

Posted 15 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: Evolutionism is a hypothesis, n…

So "Creationism" is a law? Where is the irrefutable evidence that proves Creationism is always true? Evolution is a theory, not…

More...

Posted 15 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: Friend’s car was wrongfully tow…

Jien: If I may extend myself here without the permission of Jerome, and possibly defend him, he was saying that the reply button will enab…

More...

Posted 15 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Letter: Thanks for the discussion on th…

Ms Welch I feel you missed the point. How do you tell what is acceptable at any given time in your beliefs when others have been led to ext…

More...

Posted 17 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Letter: Jesus should be what makes chur…

And so it was written from above; "So why do people attend church in Lodi? (Duh, I guess I go for the socializing and fun, duh…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists