Illegal appointment will cost Oceano

June 24, 2011

Pamela Dean


The Oceano Community Services District will likely be slapped with nearly $75,000 in fees after losing a civil lawsuit that found the board illegally appointed one of its directors.

In his tentative ruling released Tuesday San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Judge Charles Crandall awarded former Oceano board director, Pamela Dean, $74,441 in attorney’s fees after she obtained a ruling March 18 that found the district’s Board of Directors failed to follow the law when it appointed Lori Angelo to fill a vacancy.

In February 2010, after Barbara Mann resigned from the board, Lori Angello was appointed by a vote of 2-1 with one director abstaining.

Following the vote, Dean claimed the board violated its own rules of order by appointing Angello with only two votes. In addition the vote violated Government Code Section 61045, which stated “a majority of the total membership of the board of directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.”

After Angello refused to step down, Dean filed a civil lawsuit against the Oceano Community Service District and Angello.

In March, Judge Crandall ruled in Dean’s favor, agreeing that Angello’s appointment was not legal.

By that time, however, the issue was moot. Angello ran unopposed in the November election and won a seat on the board. She is now the district President.

Dean was able to go after the district to pay her attorney fees under the California Private Attorney General Statute because the court declared the lawsuit a “useful public service,” one that set “future precedent and guidance not just for this board but for other community services districts and public agencies.”

Tentatively, while the board has been ordered to pay Dean’s legal fees, the judge did not find Angello personally liable.

“Practically speaking, however, the court sees no reason why attorney’s fees should be awarded against Lori Angello, personally.  Because the award runs against a public agency, there is little risk of insolvency.”

That may not be the case for Oceano, however, which is financially strapped and is facing insolvency, according to a district document titled, “Financial Challenges to Remain Solvent.”

Once July 1 arrives, the CSD will officially be three years behind on completing and turning in audits to the county. Without the financial reporting, Oceano is not able to refinance current loans, obtain new loans, or win available government grants.

“Our finances are already tight, so it is going to be another pinch on the budget,” Oceano CSD Board Vice President Matthew Guerrero told CalCoastNews. “We are working on a new budget and this will have to be factored in.”

Meanwhile, the CSD appointed a new interim general manager Wednesday following the dismissal of General Manager Raffaele Montemurro over findings of mismanagement of district funds.

The new interim general manager, Thomas Geaslen, will be tasked with getting the CSD’s finances in order until a permanent replacement is found.

In his tentative ruling, Crandall noted that it appears “the board has changed its appointment practices and is complying with applicable authority” in that regard.


Angello’s decision to hold on to her seat instead of doing the right thing and stepping down once she realized she was illegally seated just cost each household about $34.00 ($75,000 / aprox. 2200 hookups = ~$34.00). I hope everyone remembers that when election time comes back around.


I believe the district should have directors omissions and errors insurance policy and the judgement against the district will be covered by insurance. Any board I have ever served on was required by California law to have this coverage.

This all should have been handled with civility between all parties. The OCSD’s attorney admitted he made an error in approving the new procedure requiring only two votes instead of the three required by California law. Early on the judge ruled it was an illegal appointment. The attorney’s added months to the law suit then trying to use the tactic that the suit should have been taken to the State Attorney General instead of through San Luis Courts. This tactic delayed things until one month before the appointment time was up. More time and money was spent then trying to say Ms. Dean was not the prevailing party. The judge then ruled yes, she was the prevailing party. After that more time and money was spent by the attorney’s trying to avoid paying legal fees to the prevailing party (Ms. Dean). The majority of the cost could have been avoided months and months ago if they had accepted the judges ruling the appointment was illegal and Ms. Dean was the prevailing party. Because he made an error OCSD’s attorney NEVER charged for his time. I believe if he had been charging the district would have accepted the judges ruling months ago.

This is over and done. People need to let the animosity go. The current board wants to put this behind them and move forward. Let’s all do the same.



I’m wondering if the board does have e&o since Guerrero was quoted as saying there was money budgeted to cover part of the 75K. You’ve given good advice to move forward. Hopefully all members of the board can maintain the level of civility now exhibited. I’m not so sure…..


There is E&O insurance. I am guessing because they haven’t filed a claim yet they don’t know if it will be covered for not. Another guess, I would think it will be.


Typical of sue happy people. “They have insurance, that is what it is for.” Only that all the people suing causes insurance rates to go up and hurts everyone.


The Board does not have “E&O”. Sorry, Cathy….


I was told there is an E&O policy. However, if the board does not notify the insurance company at the time a suit is filed they are SOL. Plus in this case because they were told it was an illegal appoint and did nothing to correct it, it is unlikely the insurance would pay anyway.


It wasn’t Angello who cost the taxpayers, do a little research, please. It was Pamela Dean. Period.


Yeah…..That’s it!….Who cares about our stinkin’ election procedure and voter privilege! If the Board wants to violate the state codes, let ’em….! San Luis Obispo don’t need no clean elections, BEE-ACHH! We can rig our own elections! And screw anyone with some pansy ass idea of democratic procedure, like that wicked Pamela Dean! San Luis Obispo County!


! don’t need no clean elections! Who cares if some stupid impementing regulation states that the law requires three votes to be unanimous where the board is short a couple of directors! What’s one or two board member votes? Two can vote and the Hell with the other three decisionmakers. Hell! The lights are on and nobody’s home even when they’re sittin’ there…(heaves a luvee into the spitoon)…


I assume you know how contact me if you would ever like to discuss this. I am at a disadvantage not knowing who you are. However, I agree with most all your points and the logical way you look at this. What has happened in the past is the board has violated state codes and nothing happened. They did not like being expected to actually obey state law and fought it tooth and nail. If the law had been complied with their would not be $75k being paid out.

They are currently violating their own resolution. April 28, 2010 they made a resolutuion they would only get paid for regular board meetings. No pay for committee meetings, emergency meetings or special meetings. Everyone is aware this resolution was made specifically to keep Vern Dahl from getting anything more than $200 a month. Searcy was on the board for two months and billed and got paid $900. The resolution was ignored for him. I asked at the last meeting that the board follow their own resolution and do things the right way. We will see what happens. It is supposed to be on the next agenda.


“Once July 1 arrives, the CSD will officially be three years behind on completing and turning in audits to the county. Without the financial reporting, Oceano is not able to refinance current loans, obtain new loans, or win available government grants.”

***********SEEMS LOCSD = OCEANO CSD IN STUPIDITY************************************


I guess I missed something here. Did Dean actually vote in Angello or was she the no vote, or was she the abstaining vote. If she was one of the last two choices, some of you are off base in saying she created this. If, however, she did vote in Angello, she is one whacked puppy.


She was the “no” vote.


Oh Geez, Oceano in the news twice in one day, it doesn’t get any better than this! What in the heck is in the water in that town?

I’m not going to get into who did this and that and Angelo did this and Hill did that. Fact is Dean voted during that illegal action and now she suing over something she took part of.. Dean was POed that Lori was elected so she sued, it’s that simple. Dean is suing for something that she caused. Now someone needs to sue Dean for partaking in the illegal actions. You just can’t make this stuff up.


Dean presided because Dahl recused himself. Dean did not vote for Angello. Dean etal followed the attorney’s advice of the moment. Dean didn’t cause the outcome. Do you really think she sued because she was POed, risking thousands of dollars of her money if she was wrong, just vindictive?

I believe that Simas recommended that Angello resign once the process was clarified. That would have saved tjhe taxpayer money.


In answer to your question: yes.


You wouldn’t be qualified to answer the question regarding Ms Dean’s reasoning, unless you are Dean. I can see that Dean is way too smart to proceed with a lawsuit she feels she’ll lose. If you and others feel she was wrong, sue to get your money back and your position proven.


Sorry, we are not into suing our community. Pamela Dean is the sue-happy person in town, or was that person in town, she is taking Oceano’s taxpayers money and gone to Oregon.



That Dean is an easy targit, ain’t she? Got that fancy state job, benefits, and she’s blond, petite, and smart, too! There oughtta’ be law against havin’ looks, smarts, and money, too!


But just between you an’ me, Sweet Cheeks, that dang’ attorneyman Simas! He brought up that thar’ “procedural rule” that varmit, renegade, die-in-the-wool-wolf-in-a-tie-an-shirt-tails MITCH COONEY invented back in 2001 as our OCSD LOCAL COWBOY RULE OF PROCEDURE that got us cowpokes in a heap a trouble! Leastways, that’s wat SIMAS says on that new-fangled audiotape of the February 24th, 2010 MEETINH!

But who’s got the BALLS to take that gum rattlesnake by the tail!? Hell! Not you, honey! Not me! An’ sure as Hell not that Kevin Pissant Rice! That boy didn’t get breast-fed as a child, I betcha! That’s why he’s so dadgum mean…He oughtta’ find a nice gal he can talk to, and tell her about himself, and feel like he ain’t been kicked outta’ the nest so soon….


Dean should not be suing over something that she didn’t clearly object to at the time. I saw the meeting, she didn’t clearly object. She asked a couple of questions and then she voted. She didn’t abstain or put up an argument. She knows that Oceano is facing tough financial times, she is just making things worse. I’ve seen Dean sue the city before and I feel that she takes advantage of the system by suing when things don’t go her way. If Dean would have refused to vote then their wouldn’t have been a vote so IMO she’s just as much to blame for the outcome as Hill and Lucey.


She didn’t object at the time because the attorney gave then incorrect info. When she found out the procedure was wrong, she tried to get it corrected. Actually, if Kevin is correct, the error would have been corrected at no cost if Angello had stepped down at the time Simas made the correction. I put this in the same category as the one bid computer and the Montemurro raise…that, imho, Hill and Lucey would vote in opposition to Dahl/Dean no matter what was right, or wrong. I don’t miss Hill, and Lucey is polite now for whatever reason. Guerrero should be the permanent Chair.


I hear what you’re saying but I still say that Dean should have refused to vote and don’t feel that she should be suing. I feel that she should have known better. I agree about Guerrero, he is a breath of fresh air, although I’m disappointed at his choice for the new GM.

Kevin Rice

Ha! The error was already corrected before Ms. Sue-Happy even filed her case!

The Court wrote:

“[I]t appears to be uncontroverted that THE BOARD has changed its appointment practices and is complying with applicable authority.”

Thus, what was the change brought by Ms. S-H in suing the district? NOTHING.

Yes, I am correct, and it also would have been “no cost” if Ms. S-H didn’t sue. A suit that brought nothing tangible and only cost rate payers. Ever heard that being legally right doesn’t make you morally right?

Guerrero would make a fine chair, but not permanent. We don’t do “kings” in the U.S.


This is just another in a pattern of suing by Pamela Dean. The minute she bought her property she started fighting with OCSD, accusing them of trying to take her property which was absurd. She even put up signs saying OCSD was trying to condemn her property for their use when nothing was farther from the truth. She always complained about unfair treatment and badmouthed developers but that is exactly what she was. She bought, built, has now sold and moved to Oregon. All the while she was here, she was trying to find reasons to sue the people of Oceano. Don’t think she is out attorney fees for her latest gig. This whole deal about “doing the right thing, abiding by the law, bla bla bla ” regarding the Angello appointment is a total sham. She could care less, it was a complete 100% venetta against Angello because her husband was on the board when Pamela falsely accused OCSD. It was all about personal hatred of Angello and Oceano. Period. Now she has moved away, imagine that.


Cry-me! Well, ya’ won’t have Richard Nixon to kick around anymore! An now, Pamela Dean’s gone, too! Now where are ya’ gonna’ put that foot a yourn’? (Don’t answer that, Honey! I kin see that one comin’….



How do you get the video to work? I could only get the audio to work. They videoed it, so the video should accompany the audio. Correct?


Dean tried to tell the 3 to 2 majority board many times when they were doing something wrong and they refused to listen. Another example is the $239k computer program. Anything over $5,000 requires three written bids. They only got one. She voted against that also. She took continued personal attacks and harrassment at every meeting. She tried to get them to see the things Montemurro was doing and he was protected by other board members for months. I believe you all saw how that ended. The board knew for 6 months how he had been fired from his previous job. She had to fight with the people of Oceano to prevent that board from selling our water rights.


@cathy, I don’t disagree regarding the attacks and harassment. It was disturbing watching the bullying that was directed towards Dean and Dahl. Hill and Lucey’s behavior was disgusting. But I have to disagree that she tried to tell them that they were doing something wrong regarding that vote of Angello. I don’t remember objections until later in meetings after the fact. And I also disagree about how she tried to warn them about Monte. I did learn from Dean in one meeting about how Monte hired someone that he listed on his job app as a reference, but then she dropped it, I never saw her bring it up again. So once in awhile she did speak up and I thought that was great. But she didn’t do that very often. I would be yelling at the TV telling Dean and Dahl to sack up and tell them all to stop this nonesense ie the new computer system, the audit, the thugism of Lucey, Hill and Monte. 99 percent of the time Dean and Dahl just sat there and took it and that’s what she did with the Angello appt. until after the fact. If Dean had said something like, ‘I refuse to take part in this until we find out more about the legality’ or abstained then I would be with you on this but she didn’t. She voted on it and put up little to no objection. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in the Hill camp. I can’t stand Hill, he’s a snake. But I’m not really a fan of any of them, they all ride the Oceano crazy train IMO. But out of that group I usually did side with Dahl, Dean and Mann and really found Lucey and Hill distasteful and rude. The problem with Dean and Dahl is that they didn’t speak up when they needed to.


I think Dean and Dahl tried to be professional in their comments. With the Lucey/Hill continual attacks, it had to be disheartening to even try to do the people’s business. It was predictable that Hill/Hill/Lucey would eventually turn against each other. “What goes around…….”


This is a case of having to be there when it happened. The “new” procedure Montemurro wrote he told them was only a minor change from the old one and worded per the approval of the attorney. Pamela made a mistake. She heard him read it and didn’t catch the implication. She did what she could and even if she had refused to vote at all they still would have voted in Angello with what they declared was approved by the attorney that only two votes were needed. There is no way anything she said or did that night would keep them from appointing Angelo. They said they only needed two votes and voted to appoint Angello. She did all she could and voted no, went home researched it and immediately contacted the attorney who said it was wrong his assistant had advised them wrong and t hey did need three affirmative votes. The woman did what she could under tremendous pressure. Dean and Dahl could speak up until the cows came home and it would make no difference. The other three had the majority vote. It didn’t matter what anyone else said or did.

Hill only caved and voted no for selling the water after the public made a large outcry against it. I was one who walked the streets to get the petition signed. One person out of all we spoke to declined to sign the petition because he was a developer himself. If Pam had not worked so hard to make the petition and get advise from the County Recorder on how to write it and proceed our water rights would have been given away for peanuts.

Trust me she did all that was humanly possible. Personal experience of my own I know how difficult it is to get those people to do the right thing. And I have been attacked for doing it. It is hard and it is seriously frightening.


As the most pontificent person in this discussion, Cathy, can you use your omniscient expertize to find the 2001 procedure Simas said Cooney invented? Then, come back and part with your sacred, secret wisdom to us plebicites down here in the dunes. That would be shockingly kind of you. I look forward to your catacomb aplumb! (sp!–hic)


I wouldn’t have a clue how to find a 2001 procedure. The original procedure was slightly changed, so it didn’t really look like a change, to allow two versus three votes. I think the original did call for three affirmative votes.


IMO, there will not be change in the board in Oceano (no matter what puppets are sitting on the chairs in the board room, until a State-level, independent investigation is carried out, and the perps made examples of.

Right now, Ocean looks like the easiest pickins’ in California. They are only going to attract (and retain) those who want to take advantage of the situation–like Montemurro.


MM,s clear assesment of the ocsd is refreshing.

Kevin Rice

The article leaves out the FACT that Pamela Dean herself presided over the appointment and the seating of Lori Angello. It was Pamela Dean’s official act that was illegal.

I remember Pamela Dean being upset that the GM allocated $25,000 to defend the suit. Taxpayers: don’t forget that Pamela Dean sued YOU. Pamela Dean stood up and claimed her suit wouldn’t cost the district a penny. Maybe I will try to find that little video clip. She screwed taxpayers twice.

In review, what did Pamela Dean do for taxpayers? She sued them for an action that SHE PRESIDED OVER. She performed the illegal act, then sued the public for what she did! What was the outcome? Pamela Dean took $75,000 from taxpayers for herself and her attorney as punishment for what Pamela Dean perpetrated.

The illegal act was Pamela Dean’s doing–Angello didn’t appoint herself, Pamela Dean presided over it–and Pamela Dean’s lawsuit is all about getting paid for her own illegal malfeasance.


Usually I agree with your Logic, SLOR, but in this case, I can’t. Dean presided over the meeting in question going on the advice of the then legal representation. Once it was concluded that the legal advice was wrong and so stated by Simas, the board should have corrected their mistake. But the 3 weren’t willing to do that. Had Dean not sued to correct the mistake, the board might have made the same mistake with recent appointments. It’s a shame that Lucey, Angello and Hill stubbornly stuck by their votes once the legal advice was corrected.

Kevin Rice

Okay, but consider that the Board COULD NOT correct the mistake. A board cannot remove another member, just as a city council cannot do so. Removing an elected public servant requires a recall. Thus, your assessment of the situation and blaming the Board is incorrect.

Your next inclination might be to solely blame Angello, since she could have stepped down. However, Angello also relied upon the same original advice. The very same CSD attorney that gave the wrong advice then provided representation opposed to Pamela Dean’s lawsuit which indicates that neither side had a black-and-white case. Additionally, Angello retained her own attorney who also provided good arguments for not resigning. Thus, prior to the court’s ruling, it was truly not settled whether the appointment was proper or not. Angello chose to get a court ruling which was her right. If she had resigned it would not be possible to claim the appointment was illegal because no court ruling would exist–it would still be possible today to claim the appointment was proper. So, you perhaps should be thanking Angello for ensuring that a ruling took place and that we have clarity today.

The real assessment should be: What did the taxpayers get for $75,000? They got a ruling that clarified what the rules are. That’s all! You imply that the same mistake might have been prevented with recent appointments, but that is not true. The district counsel had changed his opinion and likely the new district counsel would have taken note and would have warned against going down the same path.

Truly, the taxpayers got nothing! There was no reason for Pamela Dean to sue the taxpayers for a mistake that she participated in. Pamela Dean is on video insisting her suit against the district wouldn’t cost taxpayers a penny. She was wrong again! But she’ll gladly take your money for the wrong that she perpetrated in the first place.

It was not necessary for Pamela Dean to sue the taxpayers. She got little to nothing at a very high price.


Well, that was some of the biggest bunch of doublespeak I’ve heard. Who presided over the meeting is immaterial. They were all under the impression that it only took two votes due to improper advice from the attorney. Once it was discovered by everyone, including Angello that she was not seated properly and that two other people had also technically received a 2-1 vote, she could have done the right thing and stepped down. Pamela Dean just tried to set thing right. At any time during the process Angello, now knowing she was unfairly seated, could have stepped down and put an end to it. Blaming Pamela Dean because she presided over the meeting is absurd. It is like blaming the victim for the crime. Bottom line is the appointment was illegal and Angello knew it.


Is this the same legal counsel that only did an Earl-Scheib quality,$19.95 internet background search for Montemurro?


The board did not want to spend the money for a full background search. The legal council did as directed.




It was necessary for someone to finally go the course to force OCSD to comply with the laws they have sworn an oath to uphold.

We have courts and judges to serve justice for the people. His decision that this was for the good of the people and for the district to bear the financial responsibility was one made after careful deliberation with all the facts being considered.

We are fortunate to live in a country where we can all give our opinions. Perhaps you might consider the judges opinion and ruling be more correct than your own.



What did Crandall cite was the “authorized procedure” the Board was going by, when Crandall handed down his watchamacallit that Kevin mentioned back up the column about three feet?

Since you read Crandall’s discussion on the SimasMonteHill sanctioned Cooney 2001 procedure. You were there, right?

I’m still looking for that procedure in the actual Board Agendas but I think maybe the Board Agendas don’t go back that far. Maybe you can get a genuine certified copy of it from one of your constituents. But before you frame it, and put it in the vault, maybe you can share it with you loyal subjects.


You are incorrect, while it may be nothing, they did get Lori Angello. This is the same Lori Angello who is married to the owner of Angello ATV who according to Federal Court proceedings was the sole person involved in a “Scam” with you, Kevin. So, your support and arguments, while interesting, are merely more of your self aggrandizing efforts here in the community. At least you appear to be a consistent as a local agitator. Remember some one blogged, then I confirmed it through numerous sources, that her husband sits in the audience giving her thumbs up and down on how to vote. Some believe he thinks his wife is to ignorant and cannot remember how he has already told her to vote.


Wadda’ you?! An English major or something!? I smell an academician and Kevin knows, “teachers are just another form of welfare recipients!” That’s not work! Hauling 175 pounds down a ladder with your boots and Fire hat on! That’s work! We don’t need no stinkin’ academicians around here! We’re in the hole $74,000.00 bucks because of them! And waddid we get –at 34 bucks per Oceano resident?–Our lousy stinkin’ right to hold a clean appointment at a future Board meeting.




I am a taxpayer and I wasn’t sued. The taxpayers weren’t being sued for not following the law, the board was. We need to be logical. For example if a law enforcement officer is sued for police brutality are the people being sued or the police department being sued? Read the Tribune quote from the judges final ruling. A tremendous amount of research was done by the judge with each ruling he made during the process. I attended the hearings and the judge listened carefully to both sides and arguments and treated both sides fairly and with respect. He had all the facts and knew all the points that have been argued on this blog. I gained tremendous respect for him during the process and knew I would accept his final decision and judgement and have no doubts about his decision. It’s time to accept the right thing was done.


Thanks to Lucey, Hill and Angelo, the people of Oceano will be forced to spend more of their non-existent cash. Thank you, Dean, or else they’d still be going against the rules. The only reason the OCSD stands a chance now is because of the two new members, Guerrero and Hurdle, and the new GM.

Kevin Rice

You thank Pamela Dean for breaking the rules, then suing you for her own malfeasance?


I thank Dean for making sure the law is followed. I regret that the 3 cost the district 75K. Are you saying that they were right to go against the revised legal advice?

Kevin Rice

Why do you blame the Board? The Board could do NOTHING after the fact. A Board cannot vote to remove a member–only a public recall election can do that. The revised opinion came too late.

It was SOLELY Pamela Dean’s decision to sue Oceano taxpayers, and it was Pamela Dean’s hand during the Board meeting that held the gavel and presided over the illegal act that was basis for her suit. It’s like she sued herself for being wrong and proved that she was, in fact, wrong–all at taxpayer expense.

Pamela Dean presided over the illegal act, and Pamela Dean sued the taxpayers for her own malfeasance. Her suit gained nothing for the public and cost them $75,000.


True, it was SOLELY Pamela Dean’s decision to stand up for what was right. It was also SOLELY Lori Angello’s decision to try to hold on to the seat even though she knew it was an illegal appointment. Angello could have stepped down at any time and saved the district this money. Angello was more interested in holding on to that seat than in what it costs the people of Oceano. The judge ruled Dean was in the right and Angello in the wrong. So, who do you blame, the person in the right or the person in wrong. Get Real SLORider.

Kevin Rice

The Court ruled THE BOARD was wrong—the Board that had Pamela Dean sitting on it… and the Court ruled THE BOARD pay the costs of the suit.

The Court wrote: ““[T]he court sees no reason why attorney’s fees should be awarded against Lori Angello”



Pamela Dean was against the seating of Lori Angello both as a board member and concern about legal issues. It was others on the board with the encouragement of Raphael Montoemurro, , and Kevin P. Rice, who later changed the rules for the OCSD to be Roberts Rules of Order to post justify their seating of Mrs. Angello and allow similar outrageous behavior in the future . Mrs. Dean, after the acts and statements of Montemurro and Rice, voted NO on the seating of Mrs. Angello Both she and the lawyer considered the seating illegal. Thank you Kevin, an Out-of-Towner, who has cost us many thousands off dollars. Mrs. Dean paid 70K to bring the lawsuit and was not reimbursed. She and the attorney for the OCSD were completely vindicated by a judge.

If you are a lawyer, tell us of about credentials.


It appears that SloRider and his posse or AKAs are infuencing the vote. Wth the computer expertise and manic rapidity, it must exhausting to defend the incredible. LOL


note from the moderator


I wondered about that. It seems unlikely that there would really be that many people so ill informed. Is it family members or what? I didn’t think of KPR….doesn’t seem like his style, does it?


I find myself regretting leaving comments on this blog. It is impossible to reason with unreasonalbe people. I pay no attention to the like or dislike and agree there appears to be an attempt to skew the results so it really is meaningless. It also appears to me this stems from the long standing and bitter fight over the dunes which have nothing to do with this issue. I come to this conclusion because it also appears the majority of people who leave comments do not live in Oceano, attend the meetings, or are involved in committees etc.

I know as a resident of Oceano and as someone who participates in the meetings and have spoken to hundreds (literally) of my fellow residents I know I have an excellent and knowledgeable understanding of how we who live here and are affected by what goes on at OCSD really feel. It feels wrong to me the dune issue drives the people who don’t live here to become involved in other issues to the point of making personal attacks against those they don’t even know.

I have never become personally involved in the dunes debate and therefore have not educated myself fully on the issues. I only know as a resident and citizen of Oceano what I observe. I see people come in and camp and use the dunes and leave behind garbage. I read where children have been killed from a OHV landing on them while at the beach. We took family members to Oceano Beach one 4th of July and we saw absolute disregard for laws and the beach. Illegal fireworks were being set off, people were drinking and drunk, trash was littered all over the beach. Again, I have not educated myself on this issue. Perhaps the OHV people have organized clean-ups and ways to prevent drinking and driving on the beach. I would think they would be very interested in these kinds of things to protect their interest in the beach remaining open to their recreation.


“…………..making personal attacks against those they don’t even know”.

People that blog on here that do attend the meetings leave plenty of personal attacks on people in Oceano that they don’t know. I see it on every article about Oceano. . When you like the person and someone says something you do not agree with you call it personal attack. On this and the other article there are plenty of lies, ineundo and misinformation that gets left on the blogs. When I posted a reply to a personal attack of lies on the other article it was removed. I said someone’s post was ignorant because it was. That was removed. However, in a post above Lori Angello is called ignorant and that is OK. I guess it just depends on what side of the fence you are on if you call something personal attack.


I think the issue is a personal attack against another poster, as in “ad hominem” attacks.

The issue is that if you have to stoop to personally attacking another poster to win some kind of brownie point, then it is assumed you to not have a valid point about the other poster’s opinion.


I agree. I don’t like it when people are called names or other things that go on. Personally I find it to be juvenile behavior. I have been called a liar by someone who has never met me and accused of things that are completely false. Everyone has a right to their opinion. I appreciate other people’s point of view even if I disagree with it. When it was brought out about the illegal appointment I didn’t agree with either side until I personally researched it myself. After reading the law myself and speaking to attorneys I knew I came to my decision on the facts that I heard and read. I find too many people are willing to listen to things without checking facts. People seem to quick to judge and not consider what each side is going through. I have no problem using my own name and wish others would also so we could have adult diaglog with each other.


Come now. Why oh why would you expect a public employee much less a public bureaucracy to give a sh*t about spending someone else’s (your) money?

The role of governmental agencies at all levels is to exclusively and vengefully protect its own bureaucratic interests at the expense of the public interest and of the personal civil liberties of you the private sector sucker slave taxpayer. In the end, this country is toast unless we create a system where the public interest is protected by the government, and not where the public needs to be protected from the government.

Don’t hold your breath.


Angelo played dbl.down instead of steppin down.The rate payers are gana be asked to poney up again to cover her bet when the budget comes around . Makes ya wonder what was on the table….So far her performance has been to ignore policy and proceedures of the board in secret with ol monty,an obsolve Tylor corp. of any liability when trying to float made up numbers into the new accounting system. Water rate payers of Oceano will again be forced to pay the price to support an ongoing history

of administrative foolery. At least Angelo had the sense to hand the gavel over to a newby when a closed meeting was called that was not on the agenda an let some one else stand in line for a hit. BROWN ACT.No one even mentions that anymore, Its accepted that the ocsd makes up its own rules.Currently three of the directors have not taken the required Brown Act instruction. One has no excuse.Where was legal counceil Wed.night.Was the board trying to save a buck. The cost of saving Monty back when the board needed a majority to keep him will cost all us folks big time.Waiting to see what was really on the table.


I think the lawyer (who is due the $75K) should just get a bunch of credit vouchers from the OCSD, say $100K worth or more, then either use them or sell them. That way, the OCSD won’t lose valuable cash, plus they only lose their cost of the water/sewer, not the “retail.”


roy vouchers have to be backed by Bucks. The people of Oceano will have to back what ever it costs. Its a matter of the have’s having the have not’s subsidize their ventures.


OCSD could always pay back in Hobo Dollars.