.
On the day the Colonies Settlement settlement was reached (Nov. 28, 2006),
(1) The Board of Supervisors (Ovitt, Postmus & Biane) did an 11th-hour switch on the terms of the settlement agreement, so they could avert a four-vote requirement by the board to approve the settlement.
.
Blogger Bob's comment:
.
(a) Why wasn't the change in procedure properly agendized and public comment taken? and since the vote was 3-2, didn't the DA's office have some clue that the ONLY WAY IT PASSED IS WITH PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES BEING DONE??
(b) A procedural manuver to dilute the voting requirement for approval of the settlement could not, under these circumstances, been legal and at minimum might have raised some due process concerns. Why? Ovitt, Postmus and Biane KNEW the fourth vote could not be secured, so by doing the procedural sidestep, they got approved a settlement that would not have otherwise gone through. Why didn't this stink up the place?
(c) More problematic, didn't this put someone on notice that the legal steps required for a record huge settlement were being ignored and that might not have been done unless there was something to hide? Doesn't such unlawful conduct put someone on notice that this deal was bad? Oh yeah I forgot, Ramos and Postmus were still political allies at that time so why look?
.
(2) Changes in the settlement agreement included the purging of a land swap between the county and Colonies for surplus county flood-control property.
.
Blogger Bob's comment:
.
(a) Why wasn't the reduction of land/interest in land being being "bought" agendized and voted on after full public comment?
(b) Since when did Ovitt, Postmus and Biane have the right to give away land the County was buying/securing an interest in?
.
Wow, nothing like selling out the government you were supposed to be protecting. That's like pulling an 8 cylinder engine out of sports car and replacing it with a 6 cylinder before delivery.
.
Why wasn't this fraud something that could be judicially noticed?
.
(3) Three exhibits that were supposed to be attached to the settlement agreement were left blank. They included a legal description of the flood basin property the county was to retain, the deed for the property and a stipulation for judgment.
.
Blogger Bob's comment:
.
Again an incomplete agreement--so what was Postmus, Ovitt and Biane voting on?...and again, isn't that omission something that could have put the DA's office on notice with all the hoopla over the deal especially since the clerk of the board made it public record after it was voted on--a record that could be judicially noticed? Maybe if the final sale agreement was presented at a public meeting, Mr. Bob Nelson at the Board might have questioned the missing documents--oh yeah, I forgot, the Sheriff's Office and the BOS are looking for excuses to arrest him.
.
(4) The settlement agreement called for the deed to the basin to be recorded by the county before the county wired an initial $22 million to Colonies. The $22 million was wired to the developer the day after the settlement, but the deed was not recorded until April 6, 2007, more than four months after the settlement.
.
Blogger Bob's comment:
.
(a) First, why were we wiring money? Why could't a certified bank check have worked that could be exchanged for the proper documents through an escrow process?
(b) Wiring money to the developer without a proper settlement agreement, recorded deed and a rigged voting stunk up the County. How ripe does the trash have to get for Mike Ramos to have seen something was very, very wrong. These opps matters (and the ignored time running problems) were seen by many people in this county and that is why it was such an issue in the campaign(s).
.
SanBAG's argument: "We see no complete agreement no effort to comply with the first required steps of the agreement," according to SanBAG's legal brief. "Everything is rushed, even if it means violation of the agreement."
[Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_17808474#ixzz1MYSHqsQk]
.
Blogger Bob's comment: You'd think the DA's office would have been able to look at a huge real estate deal and notice missing Exhibits to it & land unilaterally taken out of the deal, notice procedural gamesmanship was done to dilute BOS voting requirements & deny the public an opportunity to comment. Since when is a wire transfer of tens of millions with no deed recorded ok. That is the stuff that creates a duty to inquire.
No comments:
Post a Comment