What a poor way to spend the holiday, but this google alert deserves an immediate response.

Jeff, your claims here are a reader’s digest version of what you submitted to the interview committee. Those and Mr. Flint’s comments are what Board of Supervisors Chair John Gioia called “fabrications and falsehoods”. In fact, he felt so strongly about it he said it twice if not 3 times in his deliberative comments on Tuesday. If you have issues with that characterization of yours and Flint’s comments, you should perhaps take it up with Mr. Gioia.

The problem with this process was that it was not fully transparent, nor was it balanced. I am on the email distribution list for Public Protection Committee meetings, yet I received no advance notice of the meeting involving the interviews. Also, no notice was given to the Press or a host of other usual recipients. That was out of the norm, so how can one call it transparent?

To Mr. Barber’s and Mr. Flint’s credit, they submitted some fairly heinous accusations attacking Piepho last minute to a group of 3 people from outside the county who on a moment’s notice would have no way of knowing if there was any merit to their claims. No legal opinions from County Counsel were offered as balanced, even though they had been previously rendered. One only has to put themselves in the shoes of those folks. Do you go with a candidate who has been accused of everything short of the JFK assassination or do you dismiss his consideration and play safe with only considering other candidates? I know what I would do in that position.

So credit to Barber and Flint. They went in with a plan and with intent to defame Mr. Piepho to remove him from consideration and they scored a hit.

That’s water under the bridge now. Ms. Rinehart was selected and I’m confident she will serve the Cemetery district well.

As for Mr. Gonzales repetitive stipend accusations, let’s take a look at this one last time. Since I was the person who initiated the stipends review, a few facts to be clarified. The claim that I was going after then Director Dave Dove is false. What I was looking for were minutes of a Sheriff’s SMAC meeting that would, under the law, have to have been submitted by Director Tetreault as he had made claim for a stipend for having attended that meeting. The group that yells so loud in these forums(to include Mr. Barber) for transparency were at the time deciding police service expenditures in semi-private, invite only meetings. I was attempting to understand what was being deliberated and was being rebuffed in all attempts to get the information directly from the Sheriff’s office. That’s all been well documented.

The request led to a review that uncovered some inconsistencies in state statutes. I’m referring to SB135(Kehoe) and AB1234. Collectively some of these are what make up Community Services District law. In fact, during the process the author of the update to Community Services District law passed in 2005 was contacted about the problem. Even he was surprised to learn of the conflict that was inadvertently created. I anticipate that next year there may be some action on amending this to remove the conflicts as they apply to stipends.

I'm still not entirely clear on the obsessive manner in which Barber et al. attacked the stipends issue and any other expenditure made by the CSD for work rendered, while completely dismissing the fact that their antics are costing this district tens of thousands of dollars for records requests in support of these witch hunts. Most recently they took issue with the idea of the District offering health insurance to employees, a benefit I think is long overdue.

The bottom line to that boring explanation; there was no criminal act. The stipends received were entirely defensible, keeping in mind they were requested for work done and meetings attended over a multi-year period. I have that opinion from a third party legal counsel versed in municipal law. The critics here would have you think they are simply handouts. Again, not true. They would also have you believe that it was demanded that David Piepho return monies. Also not true. Director Piepho cut a check for $10,000 immediately upon being made aware of town counsel’s opinion while it was still being sorted out as to the actual dollar amount in debate. Director Piepho went even further to personally thank me for having brought it to the CSD’s attention before it got even further down the road. That high dollar figure shows the level of commitment of Mr. Piepho because in order to even apply for those funds, one has to have actually done the work. That fact the critics would have you forget.

The document Mr. Gonzales refers to was delivered to the CSD some 6 months after the new law went into effect. It was lengthy and nobody really knew what it meant. In fact, if one looks at the comments from town’s counsel John Stovall reporting on his findings regarding the stipends, he accepted responsibility for the oversight and the lack of keeping the District aware. So much so that the town received and has enjoyed a credit for legal services to the tune of $13k this year.

Had the CSD chosen to seek an outside review of the stipends issue, I believe it would have had an entirely different outcome. But again, that is an old and retired issue, but a rock that Mr. Gonzales and his group continue to throw in their efforts to defame.

But to address Gonzales’ assertions more directly, let’s recognize that there are really only two possibilities here:

A) No crime or criminal intent took place and it was a misunderstanding or case of confusion that was resolved in a reasonable, if not generous manner

or

B) It was a criminal act the DA has been made well aware of thanks to Mr. Barber and Mr. Flint’s heavy lobbying for over a year now and the DA’s office is turning a blind eye to criminal activity.

In light of the facts, ponder for yourselves what’s the truth.

Mr. Gonzales, I will express to the DA next week when I hope to meet with him that you believe he is turning a blind eye. I’m sure he’ll be appreciative of you, Barber and Flint’s opinions and efforts to bring it to his attention that he is intentionally breaking the law. I have no doubt he will give it the attention it deserves. I’ll remind you that any screwball can drop a dime with a bogus complaint to law enforcement officials as evidenced by Mr. Barber’s buddy Doran who went so far as to put the FBI on a wild goose chase with the KCMF deal.

You guys do take the vindictive to an entirely new level. I’ll give you that.

But I have to ask; Mr. Gonzales, you being a Knightsen resident, what is this concern of yours over a Discovery Bay issue? You have stated to me repeatedly you are not associated with Mr. Barber, but you fairly consistently express identical talking points at the same points in times and now seem to be carrying the torch for him. Are the good folks of Knightsen trying to exile your brand of lunacy to DB, because we’re fairly full up in that category.

Pretty heavy junk for a holiday, but watching turkey roast can be like watching paint dry. Step away from the keyboard, John, and go enjoy some time with your family. You and the fellas can come back to your smear campaign another day.

The four concerns Mr. Barber has provided appear very valid. The $ 7,000. in ill got funds after a letter from the CSD Attorney stating the rules of stipends is of the utmost concern. This could be considered criminal if true.

I would like to invite Mr. Piepho to defend what he believes is wrong with the four facts displayed by Mr. Barber. Piepho claims is erroneous shown by his comment below;

"Piepho claims the appointment process was flawed because the informational packet provided to the independent panel included highly negative letters from his political detractors containing erroneous information. The packet also included letters supporting Piepho".

I know Mr. Mankin frequently socializes with Mr. Piepho and frequents the forums. Mr. Mankin can pass the word so Mr. Piepho can defend these four concerns.

The only thing I am interested in is facts not retoric. So please stick to the four subjects with non opinionated factual answers backed by documents as Mr. Barber has.

I would have let this issue go and not commented if it were not for individuals dragging my name back into it. So now I will offer some background on my letter(s) that went to those who were making the cemetery board selection.

Knowing full well that piepho supporters are prone to send glowing recommendations containing no specifics at all regarding the execution of board duties, I felt it reasonable and necessary, having made board selection decisions myself, to provide specific insight pertaining david piepho's actual performance on the DB CSD board. I firmly believe how an individual performs on one board is indicative of how they will perform on another board. As a local resident it is my prerogative to send forward my observations/comments/opinions and just because they happen to not be favorable for one particular applicant does not make them any less legitimate for being included in the process than someone else's positive commentary. My opinions regarding this particular public official's performance were based on the public record and on my interpretation of that record. The letters were sent well before the selection committee met and were included in the material distributed.

In my written comments there were four observations made regarding the performance of david peipho as an elected official and member of the DB CSD board of directors, following is a summary of my submission:

1, He manipulated the local selection of CSD replacement directors to exclude the most qualified and supported candidate (an enterprise finance professional) so that his wife's BOS could select a former piepho household employee who offered no accretive professional contribution to the board.

2, He has a poor attendance record at regularly scheduled 2010 CSD board meetings.

3, The DB CSD has a terrible Sanitary Sewer Overflow history (worst 5% in the state as measured by one recent state metric) and he was not engaged in dealing with this situation, i.e. a lack of focus on primary responsibilities.

4, The public record reflects that, against legal advice, david piepho request approximately $7K in stipends that after subsequent inquiry he was called on to return to the DB CSD treasury. The actual prospective letter from the town's lawyer was included with my submission.

Every one of these observations is supported by the public record and relates, in my opinion, specifically to performance as a director and therefor is predictive of future performance as a director.

I accept that all (piepho fans and minions) might not like these observations and recitations of the record, I also accept that some may feel past performance as a district director is not related to future performance...that is fine and everyone can have their opinion. But that does not give anyone the right to say that my opinion should not have been expressed or was "unfair".

I'm sorry to break the news to some of you but it is my understanding that in this country there are no divine rights to public office or to public board seats. I sincerely hope that the all elected officials and public board members pay very close attention to their specific record if they intend to hold on to their position or if they desire to seek another position.

Supervisor Piepho is only an alternate on LAFCO, she is not a voting member.

David Piepho was becoming a point man on the fire issues, particularly the critical situation with ConFire today. ECCFPD would likely be a fresh headache next year.

Don't take the word of what you read on the web(including mine). Ask the people involved in the negotiations for the facts.

If you want to argue that no representation on critical bodies such as that is more desirable, then you have a very different understanding of government processes and policy making than I do.

I find it hard to beleive that Mr. Piepho was our only hope and that we are all now doomed. I think that it is premature to assume that there will be absolutely no representation for our area. What about Supervisor Piepho? Isn't she still on LAFCO? I would think, or hope, that she is still looking out for us...at least that is how it is supposed to work. Besides, Mr. Piepho was only one vote...other people have always determined our fate on LAFCO, and at just about every level of government.

Discovery Bay is not any different than any other community, they just think that they are.

Mr. Gonzales, you appear to be having a little reading comprehension issue again, so allow me clarify a couple things.

First, it appears at this late date that you don’t even know what nepotism means. If Supervisor Piepho had appointed her husband or voted on the appointment of her husband, you could make that argument. But she did neither.

The vote today was on the appointment of Vickey Rinehart. David Piepho’s name was not in consideration. There was a motion and a second to accept the panel's recommendation prior to Supervisor Piepho's comments. Therefore there was no conflict, no appearance of conflict and certainly no nepotism. It is completely unnecessary for Supervisor Piepho to recuse herself in that instance.

You seem to struggle with procedural details here.

Now if you read the article or were in the chambers during the discussion, you would know that Supervisor Gioia took issue with the false representations made by residents Don Flint and Jeff Barber in the attack emails they submitted for consideration by the 3 outside interviewers. Don insists an investigation is taking place(current tense), in spite of 2 letters from the DA saying otherwise and Jeff’s was just all over the map with garbage not germane to the Cemetery seat in discussion. I even got a passing mention from the angry little guy in that one.

Your rambling on about a second Cemetery seat and the Vector Control seat tip your hand to what YOUR focus was all along. That was to eliminate David Piepho from LAFCO. You have succeeded. So tell me, Mr. Gonzales, how does that benefit East County by not having a representative on that body?

Don’t exercise your usual MO and change the subject, just answer the simple question. With the fire district issue pending and who knows what else over the horizon, how does letting people from other parts of the county determine our fate serve our best interests?

I think the “you broke it, you bought it” policy fits here.

Much respect has been gained by the balance of the Board of Supervisors. They did a very good job in making this process more open to citizens who truly want to be involved in their community.

I find it very disheartening that both the Piephos would cry foul when they were the focus of nepotism. The reactions from both the Piepho's quoted in this article only reinforce the local accusations.

We can only hope that a message has been sent to Supervisor Piepho that nepotism is not healthy for the Contra Costa.

With the re-application of the next Cemetery seat ending this month by the existing current board member and a second recommended qualified applicant Bailey, one of the two should be chosen and this issue should be put to rest.

I am also shocked that Supervisor Piepho voted on this subject today and not recluse herself. This again shows defiance of open government.

I also hope the public continues to watch the open Vector Control Seat and that nepotism is not again attempted. This would only infuriate the rest of the BOS as they were insulted today.