Still looking for a reason to trust the BOS
At the second reading of the Community Choice Aggregation ordinance, Supervisor Farrington seemed to equate the proposed, $2 million revenue from CCP (California Clean Power, a for-profit vendor) with a franchise fee that is, quite clearly, a bribe and a co-mingling of funds. It is provided as an incentive to provide a cash cow to a private provider, at the expense of Lake County rate payers and a tool to distinguish CCP from other potential vendors.
The bribe may also be restricted (and perhaps should be) to “CCP Programs,” presumably for the creation of new sources of clean power and administration of their contract
It is attractive to think that the county would have an additional $2 million to use towards important programs such as improvements to the quality of our lakes — but no plan is even proposed for its use.
Is it appropriate to subject Lake County residents to higher than necessary power bills in exchange for a tiny percent increase (approximately 1 percent) to the county’s general fund? Does the board rely on our blind trust in these matters? Then the process should give us some reason to trust them — but it has done quite the opposite; every public commenter has expressed grave concerns with the process and it has seemed to have fallen on deaf ears.
It is so obviously inappropriate to rely, over and over again, on the potential vendor for legal and technical advice at the exclusion of any other, in deciding to go forward with the ordinance that the vendor wrote! Yet over and over, constituent’s concerns are directed to the vendor for answers.
Who would blindly accept that the ordinance would not be intended to promote the vendor’s own interests? And an inappropriately named “Feasibility Study” (which even they admit isn’t one) written and supplied by the vendor — would it suggest any other vendor or program than theirs?
What should we call it when a for-profit vendor provides the “study” and the ordinance that enables their own program? Is this not a conflict of interest?
The vendor’s evasive and obsequious responses to supervisor’s questions should be an additional clue that the validity and intention of their materials is at least questionable.
Despite allusions to the future fluidity of the process, it is a fact that the ordinance and the clear intention of Supervisor/Chair Farrington is to move forward, eventually with a private vendor (most likely CCP) and to not consider other models.
At best the perception of these procedures is that a blinding desire to slightly improve the county’s revenues (approximately 1 percent) and a naive, philosophical preference for private enterprise is at the heart of the misguided process we have been subjected to.
Although an attorney, specializing in these matters is now being sought, it is prescribed, specifically and only to examine the contract with CCP — isn’t this premature, given the many steps that the chair claims are yet to come, before a vendor or even a program will be decided upon? The chair’s final, conciliatory tone does not seem to match his deeds.
At worst it appears that the multimillion dollar profits this venture would produce could be corruptive of county staff and/or board members.
The final statements by the Chair are encouraging, but actions speak louder than words — it is not too late to do this right — and I certainly hope that future steps in this process completely dispel the notion that it has been corrupted, or confirm it — so that the perpetrators can be held accountable.
Tim Williams, Clearlake
Lake County and bargaining power
I see our board is finally researching a bargaining power for Lake County taxpayers. I was reading the column by Jim Steele in the Record Bee … which is great … finally.
I’m very, very happy to see that, except I believe there is one thing missing. I had Peterson Dean solar roofing come to my house and look at maybe purchasing solar power. They explained to me that if I was in Sonoma County, they have a program that you can buy solar and it’s paid by being added to your property taxes. Several counties in the State of California have that program, Lake County does not. It would sure be nice if our county is in the mood, but maybe we could go further and research that and that would give our taxpayers other alternatives, especially when there are many low income people living with moderate means. This would be a major shot in the arm for many of our Lake County residents.
Thank heavens for what the county has done so far. I would like to thank our board, because I know that was a major step for them. I believe it is also an asset for our county.
Ron Rose, Lakeport
