Vendor lawyer Hall helps county official buy house

June 2, 2008


A top county official’s Arroyo Grande home was jointly purchased by her and the family trusts of local lawyer Clay Hall, whose firm receives hundreds of thousands of dollars annually as the vendor responsible for the majority of San Luis Obispo County’s outside legal work.

Gail Wilcox, assistant county administrator, owns one-half undivided interest in the house on Blackberry Avenue, according to county property documents. She took a $417,000 mortgage in April 2007 to purchase her fifty percent share of the residence. Clay Hall, his wife Kristy A. Hall, and several of their family trusts own the other half. The total purchase price, according to records, was $580,000.

Wilcox acknowledged the arrangement Monday.

“This is outside of work,” she said, adding that she perceives no conflict of interest. She said she has no direct authority over payments made by the county to Hall’s law firm, Hall, Hieatt & Connely of San Luis Obispo.

Hall also denied a conflict, describing the Wilcox property deal as “making financial sense for my family.”

Hall’s firm has provided no-bid legal work for the county for more than two decades. The county presently has about 32 legal cases placed with outside, private law firms; Hall is handling three-fourths of those, said County Counsel spokesperson Warren Jenson.

A month before the Blackberry Avenue deed was granted, Wilcox’s boss, County Administrator David Edge, put a proposal before supervisors purporting to “review and update” the county’s conflict of interest codes. The resolution, placed on the supervisors’ consent calendar and approved without dissent on March 20, 2007, also contains language specifically exempting Wilcox’s residence from the conflict regulations. The exemption appears to circumvent California law governing public officials’ conduct and defining conflicts of interest.

San Luis Obispo County officials have adopted a conflict of interest code patterned after the state Government Code. Both require financial disclosures by elected and appointed county officials and specific employees. The state code prohibits any county employee from benefitting from any contract approved by his or her department.

County Administrator David Edge said Monday that he doesn’t see a conflict of interest in the Wilcox-Hall arrangement.

“I think it is not a problem. She [Wilcox] is not involved… Deb [Hossli, county human resources director] is in charge and she reports to me,” said Edge.

Hossli, who promised to provide financial and contract information for reporters early Monday regarding county payments to Hall’s law firm, was instead “in meetings” and unavailable by publication time.

Wilcox, who takes down more than $200,000 a year in salary and benefits, said Monday she is no longer the county’s chief budget officer. Other county officials, however, told Monday that they currently believe she still is.

Edge suggested “it was probably County Counsel” that made the initial proposal for the conflict of interest resolution changes.

Wilcox received the grant deed to her new house on May 23, 2007. On that document, she is listed as “a married woman.” She was separated from David Wilcox around the time of purchase of her Blackberry Avenue house. The neatly-groomed, single-story, 1,600-square-foot residence has three bedrooms and two baths and is located in an area of homes with a value range of $550,000 to $750,000.

Wilcox’s required statement of economic interests, filed late with the county in April, lists no reportable assets for calendar year 2007. She received a stern letter threatening sanctions from county clerk-recorder Julie Rodewald for missing the filing deadline.

SLO County employees started work on revisions for the conflict of interest code in February 2007. The result was a “resolution updating the conflict of interest code for the county administrative office to reflect two title changes due to classification changes.” In Edge’s subsequent discussion with supervisors, he said the “administrative office has made changes to their conflict of interest code. The board of supervisors is responsible for approving conflict of interest codes for county departments… and therefore [it is] necessary to approve department’s designated position list.”

According to Edge, the conflict code revision also was necessary to accommodate a change in Wilcox’s title, from “Deputy County Administrator” to “Assistant County Administrator.” Along with that change was a less conspicuous alteration; newly adopted requirements for Wilcox’s conflict reporting now specifically exclude this particular provision:

“Investments in, and income from, any business entity doing business with the County and engaged in (a) the acquisition, sale or lease or development of real property; (b) provision of insurance brokerage or consulting services; or (c) provision of consulting services of the type which have, in the past two years, or which with reasonable foreseeability, may be utilized in the next one-year period by the filer’s particular division within the Department.”

When asked if the new resolution’s wording might refer specifically to her own residence, Wilcox said, “I’m not aware of that.”

Wilcox said, “I don’t think this is a conflict of interest because I don’t have any authority over Clay. I don’t deal directly with Clay Hall contracts. Deb Hossli deals with them, she signs off on Clay’s bills. I’m not involved in securing his services. That goes through Deb (Hossli) and David (Edge).”

Wilcox was asked if she thought her financial arrangement with Hall posed a potential conflict of interest.

“Nope,” she said. “I even checked it out with my boss before I did the deal. He said there was no conflict.”

She said she couldn’t recall if that particular exchange was verbal or written.

When asked if he perceived a conflict of interest, Hall replied that the house on Blackberry Avenue “is my wife’s investment. She wanted to get into the real estate investment market. The house was purchased jointly. She has half.” Hall then added, “And [Wilcox] pays rent. But she has half, too.” Hall offered no explanation regarding the rental agreement.

Edge said the Hall firm was picked by the county in “a decision of risk management years ago.” Edge said he did not know if “a specific contract” with Clay exists. County officials have been unable to locate such a contract. A Ventura County claims administrator, Carl Warren and Co., receives county disbursements to pay Hall’s firm. That contract also was unavailable.

Jenson said Hall’s law firm “has been doing the bulk of the [county’s outside] work, and they’re good at it.”

Jenson added, “I don’t think competitive bidding works well in professional services.” And he said Hall’s firm “is the only experienced law firm specializing in this type of work.”

Asked why his firm gets so much work from the county, Hall said, “We’ve been doing cases on and off since the early 1980s. We are the only pure defense firm in the county. The others do plaintiff work; you get conflicts when you do both.”

Tags:, conflict, county officials, San Luis Obispo County


By: Anonymous on 6/4/08

Hey David at work today? Spending alot of tax payer time and money responding to this… A violation of your county policy… Due you think?

By: Anonymous on 6/4/08

I wonder if blogging is part of David Edge's job discription? His blog today at 1:24 pm is probably why he may not be available to the general public. Just another expose of the wasted money within the county government.

By: Anonymous on 6/4/08

From Dewdog:

Why don't we make this real simple and have the parties produce the following information:

1. The source of the downpayment for the residence, is it 50-50?

2.Records of the monthly payment, is it 50-50?

3.Rents received, is it at market rate?

4.Insurance premiums, is it 50-50?

5.Property taxes paid, is it 50-50?

6.Property maintenance, is it 50-50?

7.Any contractural agreement between the parties stating the "investment" agreement.

If the answer to these questions show a 50-50 partnership I have no real problem with the transaction. If it's not a 50-50 transaction there needs to be some explanation to justify this 50-50 "partnership."

By: Anonymous on 6/4/08

And – so the readers get all the information – here is my response that UncoveredSLO chose not to publish:

Mr Blackburn, I can't believe you continue to dissemble on the wording.

As I pointed out in the blogs the quote from the story was not a problem of "better choice of words",- it was not true – I expect journalists, in particular, to get the facts correct. If you had identified it as language "rolled over" that would have been accurate. What you actually said was a fabrication – there was no alteration – conspicuous or otherwise.

Why is this so critical – because, by creating the impression that we made some changes that excluded Gail's real estate deal from disclosure that would previously have been required, you insinuate deliberate malfeasance.

If you chose to pitch a story about the house purchase that opined – "while there was nothing illegal or underhanded about the arrangement one can question Ms. Wilcox's judgement because there could be a perception of conflict of interest" – then we could have a legitimate discussion. That isn't the choice you made.

Here are some facts that you didn't pick up –

1) the disclosure categories for Ms. WIlcox's position (or its predecessor) were established in 1977 and have been unchanged since that time.

2) while you make much of the code excluding "Disclosure Category 3" from the ACAO (Wilcox) reporting requirements, in fact the house purchase in question would not be covered by Category 3. It would be covered under Category 1 "Interests in Real Property" – and, as state law provides, would not be reportable anyway because it is her principal residence.

So, if you hope to get back to what you call the "real issue", then you first have to correct the completely wrong statements that you made in the original article. I'd assumed originally that you had the source material, I now wonder if you actually do. If you do not have it I will be happy to provide it to you. If, after seeing that material, you still stand by your language in the article then you are simply engaging in a reckless disregard of the truth.

David Edge


By: Anonymous on 6/4/08

We sent this e-mail to County Administrator David Edge this morning:

Mr. Edge — While we were considering your pair of e-mails, you posted on

our site with comments substantially changing the tenor of the dialogue,

and placed it into a different arena. Hence our tardy response.

Intentional or not, the exclusion of "Disclosure Category 3" from the

resolution you presented to supervisors March 20 regarding Ms. Wilcox's

disclosure requirements was at least interesting. Wilcox was then in the

midst of closing a real estate deal with Clay Hall — one you had already

approved and one which proceeded during the period 12/06 through 5/07.

Whether new or "rolled over" from previous years, the exclusion takes on

special significance in light of the Wilcox-Hall real estate venture. We

all know why personal residences are generally excluded from financial

disclosure forms. This is logical. But in the Wilcox-Hall situation, this

"personal" information becomes something quite different. This is not the

kind of privacy issue the exclusion intended. The words "rolled over from

prior codes" would have been a better choice of words than "alteration".

But the Wilcox reporting requirements and exclusions were noted for

supervisors who approved the "newly adopted" resolution.

I hope this helps get us back to the real issue of potential conflict. If

you want to talk, call me. Thanks.

Dan Blackburn

By: Anonymous on 6/4/08

Ahhhh… well done, Sigh…

I guess the county handles past agendas differently, because, usually, with the current week's agenda, they have the staff report link just below each item.

In exhibit B of that staff report, it does say just what Dan says it does:

“Investments in, and income from, any business entity doing business with the County and engaged in (a) the acquisition, sale or lease or development of real property; (b) provision of insurance brokerage or consulting services; or (c) provision of consulting services of the type which have, in the past two years, or which with reasonable foreseeability, may be utilized in the next one-year period by the filer’s particular division within the Department.”

However, what's confusing, to me at least, is I don't see how it's this:

"Along with that change was a less conspicuous alteration; newly adopted requirements for Wilcox’s conflict reporting now specifically exclude this particular provision"

How does that Resolution "specifically exclude this particular provision," just like David asked? I don't see it. (But I may just be missing it.) All I see are a couple of title changes.

(And, I've said this before. The county has GOT TO make those pdf staff reports copy-and-pastable. Scanned pages suck! Not only can you not copy-and-paste from them, but scanned pages also make the document impossible to electronically search… and scans make the file size larger. David, please!!??)


By: Anonymous on 6/4/08

That's because you linked to the agenda, not to the minutes. The staff report in question is available on the website and clearly shows the only change to the Conflict of Interest Code was the updating of two job titles.

There's no specific exemption for a particular piece of property as was implied by the article.

By: Anonymous on 6/4/08

Dan will be on Dave Congalton's radio show tonight at 5:05 p.m. to discuss this story. Tune into KVEC 920 AM or listen live at Call in and voice your opinion.

By: Anonymous on 6/4/08

Dan wrote:

"Fact: Edge brought a resolution to supervisors March 20, 2007 (Agenda Item B-14, p.7) “updating the conflict of interest code… to reflect two title changes due to classification changes.”"

I thought I gave a good lesson here a few weeks back on how to provide a link, and, like I originally wrote when I provided that lesson, the ability to link directly to a source is where blogs blow print away.

Here's the link to that March 20, 2007 agenda.

David wrote:

" If you want to "stand by your story" then tell us what, specifically, was "altered", as you claim, other than the name changes.

Tell us what these "newly adopted" provisions were."

Good questions. It'd be interesting to see the staff report for that item (which is NOT linked up to the agenda) because that's probably where those answers can be found.

Perhaps Mr. Edge could provide us with a link to the staff report for that item.


By: Anonymous on 6/4/08

Quoting David Edge: "There is no conflict of interest issue for the county because, in her job responsibilities, Ms. Wilcox has no decision-making role concerning the Hall/Hiatt contract with the county and the work that they do for us."

Even if this is technically true on the org chart, and even true in fact, it's not unreasonable for citizens to be suspicious about an appearance of conflict. We all know that formal lines of authority are not always the whole story, and there are significant amounts of money involved in the home purchase and the county contract.

Any kind of coziness between a high-ranking county official and a significant county contractor is probably a bad idea regardless of the letter of the conflict rules, and if Mr. Edge doesn't know this, it's surprising.

By: Anonymous on 6/4/08

A topped out Deputy County Counsel or Deputy District Attorney currently earns $61.15 per hour in basic salary. They are not eligible for overtime because they are salaried.

By: Anonymous on 6/4/08

I've read that Hall's legal firm is the only qualified firm to do business with the County. Do you really expect us to believe that? Just go to the courthouse any day and there are attorneys everywhere trying to sue people, defend people or harass people and whatever else they do while punching the time clock. If the county can't find someone there then maybe they can let their finger do the choosing for them. All they need to do is go to the yellow pages and look under attorney. There are pages and pages of these characters willing to do anything for a buck. To even make it easier there pictures are included.

This whole thing appears to be a scam.

By: Anonymous on 6/4/08

It seems like Mr. Hubbard is concerned about this revelation. is THE watchdog for SLO County. If there is nothing wrong then no one should be worried. Being in the public arena exposes one to some tough questions at times. has asked the questions. And now all we are doing is waiting for those questions to be answered. If there not any conflicts of interest I would imagine that the answers will be provided immediately. If there are no answers then we will have to assume that the accusations are correct. Wilcox, Hall and Edge it's time to provide us with the details of what appears to be a wrongdoing.

By: Anonymous on 6/4/08

How many other financial scams has HALL done for friends? And been approved by the ever-vigilant county counsel's office

How much have other attorneys, like ERNST and MATTISON received – they were the prior county attorneys and gave the $1M contract to HALL?

How much has Hall's attorney PAL and local lawyer SCOTT RADOVICH received -weekly lunch pals?


This certainly doesn't start and stop with Edge, Gail and Deb?


By: Anonymous on 6/4/08

Yes — Please do look into who really supervises Ms. Hossli. It's well known that the task is frequently left to Ms. Wilcox to "deal" with Ms. Hossli. Edge doesn't know how to supervise; case in point — former Chief Probation Officer, John Lum. No question that Mr. Edge will attempt to cover-up this fact (that Wilcox does in fact oversee Hossli), but by all means investigate it! Someone please investigate it! King David is corrupt, arrogant, ruthless, and offensive. What's wrong with the Board of Supervisors — why don't they get it?

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

Hopefully the press will figure out how to get the stories for good journalism. Like all the stories about your inappropriate comments, your corruption, your poor judgment in condoning county officials actions that create not merely an appearance of impropriety but actual impropriety — like your old cronie, John Lum and the hot tub with the juvenile. Gee — let's see could that really be a conflict? And now you defend your employee for equally bad judgment. It's well known that Ms. Wilcox and Ms. Hossli are great friends, and so how convenient that it's Ms. Hossli who contracts or handles the billing and assignments that Hall's firm gets. Oh yes, and who hand picked her? Let's see wasn't there a story a couple of years ago about not the fact that she did have the requisite qualifications for Risk Manager? So you made her that anyway and then orchestrated a reorganization of the Personnel Department to make her the head of it? A Human Resources director with a gutter mouth — smart move there! And it's all about town how you publicly bash county employees for earning too much money and getting exhorbatant pension benefits. What's your salary . . . $175K? What part does your administration have in the fact that the county's retirement system is now hugely underfunded? What deals were cut there? Come on press, start collecting the information!

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

Just like Mr. Edge to pass the buck and claim the recommendation to amend the conflict of interest code came from County Counsel — in his 10 plus years as County Administrator has he ever taken personal responsibility for anything. So, let's blame the recently deceased County Counsel. And who is this Jenson guy — there aren't any other firms in SLO who can handle the type of defense cases given to Clay Hall. You're kidding right? Where did you come from? I say the press should request all the billing Hall's firm submits. Bet the public would find that this Ms. Hossli, Wilcox, and Edge use private counsel as their private attorneys. So let's pay Hall how much an hour, as opposed to the $45 bucks or so paid to public attorneys. Yeah, that makes sense. What's wrong with these Board members?

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

I intend to call the FBI in Santa Maria tomorrow and tell them about this article.

And I intend to forward a copy to my new county supervisor ADAM HILL.

Watch your back, Mt. Edge!

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

It is irrelevant what county law says when it conflicts state and federal law. Federal and state laws prohibit corruption often hidden as an alleged innocent act of conflict of interest. Look at the facts, a top ranked county employee’s home is subsidized by a county vendor. I guess it is SLO county and we are to slow to catch the inferences here? I don’t think so.

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

Hey Pension Plan Blogger — Yeah, isn't Ms. Wilcox one of those "contracting" (as opposed to civil service) officials who gets a $500 plus automobile allowance each month. Talk about corruption. . . and her office is soliciting ways to save money in the county budget. Gee, now let's see $500.00 x 12 months. Does she travel anywhere on county business?


By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

Well, well…Mr. Edge, Ms. Wilcox, Mr. Hall, Please pack your bags and don't let the door hit ya… We will have a Board now who will take back their mistake in giving Mr. Edge so much power to appoint department heads, a task previous to the Board of Supervisors. When given to Mr. Edge, he promptly removed the Civil Service protection of department heads, and put his minions in who must support him or basically be fired. All corrupt from the get go. Mr. Patterson, Mr. Hill, Mr. Mecham…clean house. Thank you.

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

Who the f are you? What "facts" are incorrect in the story? Did Gail leave her husband and two children for you???? Just wondering.

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

Thomas Jefferson once said, "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man

who reads nothing but newspapers." Nowhere is this more true than tabloid journalistic hit pieces, such as this blog article by Blackburn and Velie. Not only did the authors fail to get all their facts straight before writing this article, they spun the few pieces of truth in such a way that betrays their anti-county government bias.

As for the commenters following the article, how many of you have actually attended a Board of Supervisor's meeting? How many of you have actually read a Board item and researched the information before forming an opinion about what you perceive to be corruption and conflicts-of-interest in County Administration? How many of you can lay out the entire job description of Ms. Wilcox in order to discuss intelligently what she does for the county (and does well, I might add) in exchange for what she is paid? How many facts do ANY of you know first-hand (directed primarily at the despicable individuals who questioned Ms. Wilcox's family values and loyalty to her children)?

All this blog article proves is when there is no story there, the story must be manufactured. No more, no less.

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

I am surprised that David Edge is wading into this online controversy. He zeros in on a specific issue, but is ignoring the larger concern.

He signed off on letting his No. 2 get into a business deal with a county vendor? Wow. That stinks.

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

Tsk tsk David, thou does protest to much. Freaking out a bit are we?

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

Mr Blackburn – I'm disappointed that you try to avoid the real factual errors in your story.

The following is a direct quote from the story:

"Along with that change was a less conspicuous alteration; newly adopted requirements for Wilcox’s conflict reporting now specifically exclude this particular provision"

Let me reiterate my earlier comment – that statement is not true. As I told you in the my e-mail to you and as the Board item itself shows, there was NO such change made to the conflict code language – NO "alteration" conspicious or otherwise. and NO "newly adopted requirements…"

If you want to "stand by your story" then tell us what, specifically, was "altered", as you claim, other than the name changes.

Tell us what these "newly adopted" provisions were.

In fact you know, or should know, that all provisions from the old conflict code document rolled over unchanged into the new code document. Your paragraph, that I quoted, is – simply – a fabrication.


By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

First, the county cannot decide that it is exempt from conflict requirements established by state law. If that was the way things worked, SLO County would probably legalize slavery. Wilcox seems to think that if her boss says it's OK to get involved financially with a multi-million-dollar service provider, then it's OK. Are these people daft?

Second, there's only one story here, and that's the fact that David Edge wouldn't know a conflict if it hit him between the eyes. Is there anybody out…there?

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

First, the key piece of this story is that it looks like there are inappropriate and illegal relationships between the number two county employee and a contract company head. Numerous laws, enacted to protect the taxpayer, make this a criminal act.

Second, are you worried about the consent order only because you are the name behind it or is it a way to detract from the primary issue, probable bribery? Cover your ass type mentality. Sorry David, anyone with any degree of code knowledge will find uncovered to be correct.

Third, Deb and Gail are great friends. Wasn’t there an occasion when the two were out drinking and driving past an ex-boyfriend of Debs house that prompted Deb to throw a large pot though her ex’s window. Charges were filed and the Tribune covered the story.

Forth, isn’t principal administrative analyst Dan Buckshi, an employee that reports directly to Gail, who then responds to Edge.

Sorry David, but this stinks.

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

Dan Blackburn

So, if the county specifically excludes one particular individual, than its not a 'CONFLICT OF NTEREST". How can I insert resolutions into laws where I would be exluded from any wrongdoing? That issue must be eplored.

Thankyou Dan Blackburn

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

We stand behind our story. David Edge raised his issues in two e-mails with demands for retraction. We avoid arguments with readers; but Edge’s comments require clarification.

Fact: Edge brought a resolution to supervisors March 20, 2007 (Agenda Item B-14, p.7) “updating the conflict of interest code… to reflect two title changes due to classification changes.”

Fact: Edge’s resolution approves the proposition that the residence of the assistant county administrator is not subject to conflict of interest requirements. Gail Wilcox’s house is specifically excluded.

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

Who cares. Let's pull out that puddin' spoon and scrape that barrel.What happens to this site when our little county runs out of corruption stories. Oh ya…corruption…it's everywhere! LOL

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

David Edge

You clarify some issues, however when it comes to 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST" this should have passed the smell test. When someone works for a governmaental agency making deals with an outside provider, there is always a problem with potential conflict. It was unwise to enter any type of deal between the two. Both should have know better ragardles the merritt of the issue. Its public confidence.

Daniel Blackburn owes no apology by providing a public service with such a potential magnitude.

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

Thanks Mr. Edge for your post. should man up and print the truth.


By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

As I said on my first post there is nothing to this other than to torture somebody.OK now you can all start again.

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

Sorry for the funky spelling errors.

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

Mr. Edge,

Thank you for taking the time to post your response to the article. I agree that the potential discrepencies in question are material and, if confirmed, should be ecknowledged and corrected.

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

I meant to include my name in the previous "anonymous" comment . I am the County Administrative Officer and Ms. Wilcox is my employee.

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

Some people have said they want to hear from the county on this issue so – for anyone interested in the truth – the key piece of this story is wrong – plain wrong.

Specifically – there was no change in Wilcox's "conflict reporting requirements" made in the March, 2007 Board item. The ONLY change made by that item was to the position names. NO other language was changed at all.

Further, the adopted provisions contain NO language "specifically exempting Wilcox's residence from the conflict requirements" as claimed by the article.

I want to assume Mr. Blackburn simply made a mistake. However, I advised him of this factual inaccuracy as soon as I read the story yesterday. I have had no response from him, nor has he seen fit to publish a correction. At this point, it seems to me, he is recklessly disregarding the truth.

Now to the issue raised – Ms. Wilcox and Mr.Clay's family did jointly purchase a house as reported. This was done openly and above board.

There is no conflict of interest issue for the county because, in her job responsibilities, Ms. Wilcox e has no decision-making role concerning the Hall/Hiatt contract with the county and the work that they do for us.

Hall/Hiatt works for the Risk Management Division supervised by Deb Hossli. Ms. Hossli was appointed by the Board of Supervisors and reports to me. Wilcox is not in the loop.

In other words – there is no story here about Wilcox. There is simply innuendo and insinuation – not good journalism. The real facts are all readily available. I encourage anyone interested in the truth to examine them completely before jumping to conclusions.

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

Cindy says:

How old are you? I want a pic too! No husband please!

I get a job at the county and you can have everything.


By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

Tip of the iceberg uncovered. Keep digging uncovered there's lots of government lawyers who are doing deals. How much are we paying government lawyers who are sitting around coming up with laws that old man sunny acres can break when he is taking care of people the county abandoned? what other behind closed door deals have been arranged? A county lawyer named Ann Dugan tried to do a closed door deal to get her husband one of those big dollar contracts but was finally stopped. Like this other dame she has walked away from the old man and kids. Maybe because he did not get a fat contract like the others in the investigation. But there's much more lurking behind the door of the courthouse. go get 'em!

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

liam = santa maria bill

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

To anyone who is in a position to award me a no bid contract that will gross me $1,000,000. per annum. Here is my promise.

My husband and I will be your best friends.

We will even go “halfsies” on a home for you to live in.

We will pay the taxes and charge you very low rent to make it seem all legal.

If you have a boss we will be his best friends too.


If you have an employee who might get too close to our arrangement, I’ll be their best friend too. We will all live happily ever after.

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

I want pictures!

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08


By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

The County Grand Jury which has subpoena power should look into this. No more, 'I'm in a meeting all day,' or 'we can't find the paperwork,' BS.

Frankly, the county is likely to never respond to this Web site. You folks need legitimacy, you need to use the public records act to force these documents out of the county.

Gail Wilcox was involved in another scandal some time ago, can't recall what it was, but it was something about her being promoted to a new job that she wasn't close to being qualified for…

Perhaps some of you will remember.

Good story

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

You are obviously a jerk. To declare someone an idiot because they might mispell a word and make a typographical error just shows what you really are-probably a Cal Poly professor. I guess in your world someone that is not equal to your standards is an idiot and not worthy of making a comment. Once again you are a jerk.

By: Anonymous on 6/3/08

To the two individuals who posted just after mine:

"Pity Pity.." You think you know more than you do. Your ignorance is plain to see, but your cruelty is appalling.

And to "To Liam"… Check your math on her salary. You're not even close. Tell us which law was broken, and tell us why you should have the tiniest ounce of credibility when, after making those first two mistakes, you prove your idiocy by being unable to spell words that are on my children's elementary school reading list. Yes, I'm sarcastic and admit it, but you're either ill-informed, uneducated or just plain moronic.