Coto de Caza Supplier Performance Management Performance

Coto de Caza Supplier Performance Management Performance
September 27, 2006

Given Keystone’s, private security company and the myriad of consultant’s track record, we repeatedly asked the board to use our supplier performance metrics or come up with their own.

Finally the board’s response was: “If the supplier’s contract is renewed, then that supplier is doing a good job”. As ridiculous as it sounds, THAT was the response.

A few months later, the new and improved performance tracking response was modified as “we track the supplier performance on a daily basis”. Going from the ridiculous to the sublime!

Assuming that someone at the management company has an intelligence above an average bear, one could assume that there IS some sort of supplier performance management, and it is somewhere between daily to yearly. One can also assume that public safety is at least a Top Five on the list of Coto residents’ and the boards’ priorities. Further, if we are to take the Varo remarks about the firing of the CHP as soon as the Welcome Home Center was equipped with a phone for the Sheriff as a “misunderstanding”, is it then reasonably that CHP management would by now know the following: 1) CJ Klug is no longer the association’s manager, 2) The new manager’s name and 3) that the CHP contract will be renewed at the end of the year?

So how come, as of last week (week of September 17, 2006) , neither Sgt. Greg Saulman, the keeper of the CHP contract, nor CHP Media Director Officer Goodwin know what is going on?

On a related subject, the Varo For Mayor Committee has argued that the reason they prefer the Sheriff over the CHP, is that Coto could then negotiate with the Sheriff for services, directly. This is utterly wrong, since the Orange County Board of Supervisors negotiates a flat rate with the Sheriff (notice Pat Bates 3% at 50 and why the Sheriff’s Union has endorsed her). Users merely pay the piper for the services used, at the rate previously negotiated……meaning the City of Coto will be paying inflated rates and subsidizing the 3%-50 Program!

CHP Public Arrest WE9-24 and the Varo For Mayor Flawed Arguments

CHP Public Arrest WE9-24 and the Varo For Mayor Flawed Arguments
September 27, 2006

With more than a few data points under Coto’s belt, we can officially declare that there is a positive downward trend in the number of Coto residents arrested by the CHP since we started this report!

The Varo for Mayor Committee has been using the flawed argument that the reason for turning Coto into a city – and terminating the CHP contract – is that Coto would then be able to negotiate directly for pro-active Sheriff services. The fact of the matter is that the Orange County Board of Supervisors negotiates with the Sheriff the official rates. All local cities can do then, is get more or less patrol services at the negotiated rates. Going rates for a Sheriff’s “foot on the street” is roughly $110,000.00/year – which is what Coto currently pays for the CHP’s pro-active traffic patrol.

CHP Public Arrest Log:

Coto de Caza Board of Directors and Pat Bates Make a GREAT TEAM! -

Coto de Caza Board of Directors and Pat Bates Make a GREAT TEAM! - The South Orange County Welfare Services Leadership Board

September 29, 2006

The Coto de Caza subsidizes the Estates and the Villages at the tune of over $1,000,000/year.

Pat Bates voted to raise pensions to public employees by a whopping 50% (SB 400). This Bill set the stage for the 3% at 50 benefit package that financially threatens the viability of Orange and San Diego Counties.

The Coto de Caza Board of Directors Subsidizes CotoCAN to promote a wider community, while certain members of such community, namely the Estates, want to create their own uber-exclusive community in a gates within the gates arrangement.

The Pat Bates 3% at 50 means that the benefit is 3% of the highest years earnings (including every cost allowance available at the retiree's departure (including clothing allowance, misssed meals allowance, second language allowance--- 24 separate allowances in all) multiplied by the number of years of employment and ALL PAYABLE AT AGE 50. Example: a 30 year employee retiring at age 50 with a final years compensation of $70,000 plus allowances of $10,000 would be entitled to 3% X $80,000 X 30 years or $72,000 FOR LIFE! A recent computation comparing a retiree under the 3% at %50 rule and a normal retiree from industry showed the 3% at 50 receiving about ONE MILLION DOLLARS in retirement pay BEFORE THE INDUSTRY RETIREE COLLECTED A DIME IN FEDERAL RETIREMENT. Great subsidy for the Sheriffs Union! Why else would you suspect that an un-named South Orange County Deputy Sheriff would endorse Ms. Bates for Orange County Supervisor

The Coto de Caza board of directors accepted “free trees” from Ladera Ranch, costing at least $45,000.00. The same board that brought in a GateWorks – a “free” online registration service - that costs over $100,000 just for printing guest passes! The same board that subsidizes the Sports Park at the tune of tens of thousands of dollars for use for non-residents. The Coto de Caza Board of Directors continue to pursue personal agendas through the Varo for Mayor Committee, pushing the shortly-to-be-bankrupt Rancho Santa Margarita to absorb Coto de Caza.

Bates voted for more than $500 million in pay increases for public employees at a time when the state was billions in debt.

CotoBuzz and others asked this Coto de Caza board to focus on association matters, rather than to pursue personal agendas. The same board that fired the CHP for pro-active traffic control without a suitable replacement, with two tragic traffic fatalities, whereas the community did not have a fatality over the last ten years. The same board that was coerced into bringing back the CHP after these tragedies. Yet, even after these incidents, the board refuses to recognize a public safety committee, and instead close to nine months later, a “public safety committee” is formed with a focus on turning Coto into a City. Varo then brags that he will fire the CHP, and replace it with the Sheriff, then denies having made the promise, yet no-one has been in touch with CHP management to alert them about management changes within Coto de Caza!

However, once again the board is using association funds to promote the CSD/City Hood issues by inviting “…some residents who will take the reins on the investigation of the merits and/or lack thereof associated with the formation of a CSD.”

Bates voted for SB 401; AB 738; SB 160 for which her consultant is quoted saying "...she has been up front in saying she regrets the AYE votes she made on these Bills."

Coto de Caza Board of Directors and Pat Bates make a GREAT Team! We suggest a name for this alliance: The South Orange County Welfare Services Leadership Board

But wait – there is more!

Pat Bates has been asked numerous times to respond to these and other issues.

The Coto de Caza has received a good number of comprehensive fiscally responsible budget and public safety proposals.

No response from either!
RELATED STORIES
CHP Public Arrest WE9-24 and the Varo For Mayor Flawed Arguments- With more than a few data points under Coto’s belt, we can officially declare that there is a positive downward trend in the number of Coto residents arrested by the CHP since we started this report!

Coto de Caza Dealing with the Estates and Village People
Before the Coto de Caza (CZ) Board of directors raises dues again in 2007 on CZ Members, the Board must deal with the subsidy provided the Estates and Village people to be fair to CZ Members. Since the Estates and Village people pay not one dime to...

Coto de Caza's Robert Varo For Mayor, The OCR and Pat Bates Common Denominator?
Pat Bates' (Candidadate for Orange County Board of Supervisors) claim to fame according to her website is that "She was the driving force behind Laguna Niguel's cityhood campaign and became the first Mayor upon the city's incorporation in 1989."

THE COTOBUZZ (COTONUTZZ JOURNAL) September, 2006
CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN COTO DE CAZA? DEPENDS ON WHAT "IS", IS!
Coto de Caza 2007 Dues Increase a Varo/Mezger Scam and a Sham
Bob Varo has basically announced the 2007 CZ Dues increase in his August newsletter as I predicted would occur a few months ago....

Agenda Journalism by the Orange County Register or Adporting?
The January 25, 2006 issue of the OC Register reports that “ Residents living in unincorporated areas of the county will get more law enforcement on their streets by the end of February”.

Lawless, Clueless Coto de Caza
Last night, December 12, 2006, the CZ homeowner’s association board of directors held their regularly scheduled open session meeting. Present were representatives from the LA Times and Freedom Communications.

CZ MASTER ASSOCIATION (COTO DE CAZA BOD) FORMAL COMPLAINT
I am writing on behalf of Coto De Caza Concerned Citizens and as a former Board Member of the CZ Master Association, a 3,500 member homeowners association located in Orange County, California. This letter constitutes a formal complaint against the CZ...

Coto de Caza, CA. - Public Safety Invitations
If you are as concerned as we are about safety (accident prevention, crime prevention, vandalism and invasion of privacy), please join us January 10th at 9:30 am on the first floor of the Board Hearing Room at 10 Civic Center Plaza in Santa Ana, CA. where...

CotoBuzz January 2006 Newsletter
CZ MASTERS BOD/ OC REGISTER CONSPIRACY – CZ MAFIA? YOU BE THE JUDGE! As CotoBuzz readers know, we have been working for some time on a model to help us understand the relationship between the CZ Board’s multiple breaches, and the output from...

CHP Public Arrest Log: DUI 8-8-2006/8-15-2006

We have just received the first installment of the CHP Capistrano Area Public Arrest Log for the week of 8-8-2006 – 8-15-2006, for violation of the California Vehicle Code section 23152 [a] [b]. Among other details, the Arrest Log identifies the individuals arrested, arrest date and place of residence.

The breakdown is shown below:

CHP
Public Arrest Log
8-8-06 to 8-15-06
City No.
San Clemente 6
Santa Ana 4
Irvine 2
San Diego 2
San Juan Capistrano 2
Coto de Caza 1
Camp Pendleton 1
Pacoima 1
Laguna Hills 1
San Francisco 1
Fallbrook 1
Long Beach 1
South Gate 1
Arcadia 1
Racho Santa Margarita 1
Mission Viejo 1


We do not make jokes, we simply watch the Coto de Caza Board of directors, the LA Trash and the Orange Crud Repository and report the facts

Saving Lives, Saving Money

For that minority in Coto who still think the community does not have traffic problems, all the need to do is stand some 30-60 minutes on any side street. Very quick, you will see teen drivers going over 60 MPH on 25 MPH zones!

· The bottom line is that teen drivers are dangerous.

· Teen crash rates per mile driven is four times that of drivers older than 19.

· Over 50% of teens have an accident within their first year of driving

· According to Allstate Corp., 61% of teens said they take risks because they are convinced they are good drivers!

· Teen drivers are found at fault in 66% of ALL FATAL collisions that they are involved in, although they only represent 4% of the state's licensed drivers.

· The leading cause of DEATH for Americans 15 - 20 years old is motor vehicle collisions



To safe lives and save money in the process, there is plenty parents can do:
1. The California Highway Patrol's Start Smart program is a driver safety education class which targets new and future licensed teenage drivers between the age of 15 - 19 and their parents/guardians. Click HERE to learn about these classes!
2. Insurers such as State Farm and Automobile Club of Southern California, offer discounts if a teen takes a special driver’s safety course. State Farm offers up to 15% discount for participation
3. The AAA offers a 4.5% discount for teens who go through its in-house course
4. To avoid accidents, the simplest advice is to avoid distractions such as music, friend and cellphones.
For responsible Coto parents, it may be a good idea to look into some of the programs cited above – to save lives. If money is not an issue, send us the savings and we will make sure to forward it to a local charity!

RELATED STORIES:
Grup City – Coto de Caza ......Of Peter Pan, Grups and Coto d Caza
As the Coto de Caza board of directors controlled by Varo/Mezger/Hill continue to handle public safety as a Tar Baby, it is only appropriate to consider a tag line for Coto de Caza once Varo/Mezger/Hill accomplish their goal of turning Coto into a City....
COTO DE CAZA's CZ MASTER ASSOCIATION INTENT TO PETITION TO RECALL MITCH HILL
Despite the many artificial road blocks created by the CZ Master Association Board of directors during the 2006 District Delegate Elections (including tampering with the election process, distributing wrong and misleading information, and using weapons of...
COTO DE CAZA CHP TRAFFIC REPORT FOR MAY 2006
The May 2006 CHP statistics for Coto de Caza is consistent with the Coto de Caza board of director’s inaction with regards to public safety: These show an accident rate rapidly approaching the record-breaking 2005 that lead to the first traffic...
Deliverance – the Coto de Caza District Delegate Committee Movie
In an incestuous move reminiscent of the movie Deliverance, Varo/Mezger/Hill, have done what they refused to do with Coto residents concerned with public safety: use association funds to promote their self-preservation:
Bicycle Safety Within Coto de Caza
During the June 8, 2006 Coto de Caza board meeting Yo Orduno described a public safety situation in the Summerfield district including a warning about an increase of rush hour cyclists in and around Vista Del Verde, some even riding pairwise making the...
DaVaro Deception: The Involution (yes, not evolution) of the Safety Committee
Just coming off a landmark public safety committee-of-one meeting held July 11, 2007, the Coto de Caza board, in a bold move that assures more due diligence in the selection of public safety committee members, than that exhibited in the firing of the CHP,...
The DaVaro Deception: Wrong and Misleading Information RE: Public Safety Within Coto de Caza
The Information being distributed to residents by Keystone (undated and with no title), regarding public safety, like the information provided to the Orange County Register is misleading and plain wrong:
Orange County DA to Review Complaints against the Coto de Caza local governing body and service providers.
In our continued commitment to public safety, and our search for justice for Mr. Morteza Manian, earlier this week (Monday July 17, 2006), CotoBuzz had the opportunity to meet with Susan Kang Schroeder, Orange County District Attorney Public Affairs...
Coto de Caza/Public Safety Committee Vows not to speak to the press.
The committee, made up of representatives including LAFCO, convened Wednesday to set a public meeting schedule.
As the meeting was wrapping up, LAFCO member Peter Herzog suggested all members refuse comment to the press for the duration of the...
Invitation to First Public Safety Committee Meeting Since First Traffic Fatalities: DaVaro Deception - Law and Order !
Invitation to First Public Safety Committee Meeting Since First Traffic Fatalities in Last Ten Years
If you care as much as we do about public safety and property values (usually associated with the sate of security in any given community) within...
DaVaro Deception - Law and Order ! We don’t need no stinking law, WE are the law!
VARO/MEZGER/HILL: Hell now, won’t go! – we will not leave the Coto de Caza board under any circumstances!Besides public safety, what has sparked the interest of several Coto Discussion Forum participants and CotoBlogzz readers is the issue of...
DaVaro Deception - From Best to Pest in 60!
The evolution of private security management within Coto de Caza very much follows the evolution of the Coto de Caza board of directors make up - to the incumbent board of directors:


We do not make jokes, we simply watch the Coto de Caza Board of directors, the LA Trash and the Orange Crud Repository and report the facts

Demand for Apology from Coto de Caza Board of Directors

To: Orange County Register Editors, CotoBuzz

cc: CZ Master Board Members
c.c. Coto Discussion Forum
c.c. James Harkins, Coto de Caza Legal Counsel
c.c. Cary Treff, Coto de Caza Property Manager


As the CZ Master Association board of directors meetings of August 10, 2006 was to commence, association president Robert Varo informed me that I was not welcomed. He also told me in no uncertain terms that I was to leave immediately or be removed by force by the Sheriff. Mr. Varo’s arbitrary and capricious actions are deplorable and insulting not only to me, but to my daughter, a long time Coto resident and homeowner, her family and to the many residents who witnessed the incident.

Because of personal differences between Mr, Varo and I, which have been played out and documented in the Orange County Register, he denied me access to the board meeting and threatened to call the Sheriff if I did not leave immediately.

When Coto de Caza board of directors’ member, Jerry Mezger, intervened, he explained that because my daughter’s name on the deed, and not mine, the CC&R were clear that I had no right being in the meeting. He said it with a straight face, even though sons and daughters of Coto homeowners regularly attend board meetings. Most hypocritical however, is the fact that both Varo and Mezger, allowed Paul Young, a person whose only connection to Coto was that he lived with friends, to not only attend board meetings, but also lead the Delegate and Others Committee as their chairperson, as well as to access to association resources.


Obviously, I am extremely disappointed with the actions of the president of the largest gated community in the area, but I am more disappointed with the rest of board Members, for aiding and abetting.

I hereby request and demand an apology from Mr. Varo and the rest of the board of directors.

SUMMARY OF VARO/CARUSO DIFFERENCES

July 8th, 2006:
Caruso has a private meeting with Bob Varo..Many items are discussed including Varo’s intentions to move the Call Center staff, The Transponders Staff and the UPS Director of Security & Staff, that he was going to make a work area for the Orange County Sheriff and then he was going to fire the CHP again. Mr. Varo also invites Caruso to attend the first Public Safety Committee Meeting to be held on July 11, 2006


July 11th, 2006
Caruso attends the First Safety Committee meeting hosted by Philip Mitchell. Caruso explains his extensive experience with security matters

July 13, 2006
Caruso attends the CZ Master Association board of director’s meeting and signs up to speak . Because of the immense implications and for clarification purposes, Caruso brings up Varo’s intentions to fire the CHP at the completion of the Welcome Home Center. Caruos then asks Varo to confirm, but he replies: "No that is not true." Caruso then counters, "Mr. Varo that’s a lie." This is where Caruso becomes Varo’s Number One Enemy.

July 14, 2006
The OCR’s RSM News and CanyonLife carry an article titled "Coto holds first public safety committee meeting ." In that article Caruso is misquoted, and portrays Varo as a proponent of the CHP. It is only after countless conversations with the OCR staff that a retraction is printed to reflect what actually happened during the board meeting.

It should be noted that it is at this time, Caruso receives a call from newly appointed association Safety Committee chairman, Philip Mitchell stating that "the things you had to say at the last board meeting were right on target and as far as I am concerned your on the Safety Committee and I will recommend that to the BOD. I will also tell them that if your not on the committee that I would resign my position as Chairman of the committee” – Of course, now, even Mitchell has distanced himself from Caruso.


However; former member of the CZ Master association board of directors and Coto resident puts it best when he says: “Ed, you just don’t get it. Ever since you demanded a retraction from the newspaper concerning Varo’s comment about the plan to fire the CHP, you were put on the "Enemies List" not the Safety Committee list. You just got your lists wrong. Varo, Mezger and Missing Hill want to appoint lackeys who don't make waves and who will support formation of a Community Services District to raise our taxes. That is the real story”, or as the CotoBuzz may say “As hard as this is to believe, this is consistent with the Varo/Mezger modus operandi - The excuse used by Mezger to fire the previous, more than qualified public security chairperson was the he "...though it was illegal to have spouses serve on a committee because of the undue concentration of power on one household.."

However, using their logic, it is OK to appoint paid consultants to the security committee. It is also OK to appoint residents outside the CZ Master Association to the security committee. But it is not OK to appoint well qualified association residents with backbone - just in case the spineless volunteers get any ideas. Perhaps you can join the committee as a paid consultant?”

RELATED STORIES:

Paul Young, DnO Group: FRE or Deadenders? - Secretary Rumsfeld calls the Chinese communist censors LIGGIT - League of Intelligence Generals in Generic Information Technology. The names he ascribes to the Islamic terrorists are Former Regime Extremists (FRE), although he prefers to use the term deadenders.

Terrorism Concerns Leads to Booting of Family Members from Coto de Caza BOD Meeting
Apparently due to ongoing terrorism concerns, the Coto de Caza board of directors has tightened up on security measures. Effective today’s general board meeting (8-10-2006), Varo and Mezger, speaking on behalf of the Coto de Caza board of...

Orange County DA to Review Complaints against the Coto de Caza local governing body and service providers.
In our continued commitment to public safety, and our search for justice for Mr. Morteza Manian, earlier this week (Monday July 17, 2006), CotoBuzz had the opportunity to meet with Susan Kang Schroeder, Orange County District Attorney Public Affairs...

Coto de Caza/Public Safety Committee Vows not to speak to the press.
The committee, made up of representatives including LAFCO, convened Wednesday to set a public meeting schedule.
As the meeting was wrapping up, LAFCO member Peter Herzog suggested all members refuse comment to the press for the duration of the...

When is a retraction not a retraction? When it comes from the OCR!
In the August 4 issue of the OCR’s CanyonLife, hidden under a picture of the Pet of the Week, appears an inconspicuous paragraph titled Clarification that reads”
“Coto resident Ed Caruso and Board President Bob Varo of the CZ Master...

Where is Waldo?: That is, Coto de Caza Corporate Accountability and Transparency?
It is fair to say that under current business environment, corporate accountability and transparency are extremely important, and corporate officers and legal counsel stay as far away as possible from anything that could be construed as conflict of...

DaVaro Deception: The Involution (yes, not evolution) of the Safety Committee
Just coming off a landmark public safety committee-of-one meeting held July 11, 2007, the Coto de Caza board, in a bold move that assures more due diligence in the selection of public safety committee members, than that exhibited in the firing of the CHP,...

Life In Coto to Get More Expensive?
Hello All: There is a rumor on the street that a CZ Dues increase is coming next year. I hope it is not true; but it would not surprise me one bit because of all the fiscal mismanagement we have seen under Varo, Mezger and Missing Hill. All I can say...




We do not make jokes, we simply watch the Coto de Caza Board of directors, the LA Trash and the Orange Crud Repository and report the facts

Terrorism Concerns Leads to Booting of Family Members from Coto de Caza BOD Meeting

August 10, 2006

Apparently due to ongoing terrorism concerns, the Coto de Caza board of directors has tightened up on security measures. Effective today’s general board meeting (8-10-2006), Varo and Mezger, speaking on behalf of the Coto de Caza board of directors have determined that Coto homeowner’s family members, are no longer welcome.

This after the same dynamic duo acted to boot a most qualified public safety chairperson because their spouses wanted to volunteer as well. According to these two men, this creates a situation “where undue power is concentrated in one household”. Wink, Wink!

In booting Mr. Caruso out of today’s board meeting, the dynamic duo determined that “according to CC&Rs, Coto homeowner’s family are not allowed to attend board meetings.

If you buy this line of reasoning, I have some free tress for you (similar to Mezger’s) $45,000.00 free trees.

Bottom line: The current board does not care about public safety. CotoBuzz has documented this fact faithfully. All they care about is the pursuit of personal agendas!

NOTE:

Coto de Caza Board of directors member Jerry Mezger often use the "vote argument" to boot volunteers the board does not care for.

However, the much over-used “vote argument” is simply a red herring. Everyone familiar with the workings of the CZ Master Association knows, and history confirms it, that committee members have no real say and no real vote. Ultimately what happens or fails to happen is decided by Varo/Mezger….this by they way, also include freshmen directors.

What is the substantive difference between a paid consultant in a safety committee and a non-homeowner resident? The non-homeowner resident has the best intentions for the community, whereas the consultant simply is interested in a pay check!


RELATED STORIES:

Paul Young, DnO Group: FRE or Deadenders? - Secretary Rumsfeld calls the Chinese communist censors LIGGIT - League of Intelligence Generals in Generic Information Technology. The names he ascribes to the Islamic terrorists are Former Regime Extremists (FRE), although he prefers to use the term deadenders.

Coto de Caza, CA. - Public Safety Invitations
If you are as concerned as we are about safety (accident prevention, crime prevention, vandalism and invasion of privacy), please join us January 10th at 9:30 am on the first floor of the Board Hearing Room at 10 Civic Center Plaza in Santa Ana, CA. where...

CITY HOOD TOWN HALL MEETING CANCELLED! – BRING BACK LAW AND ORDER TO COTO DE CAZA! Because of our efforts to persuade the CZ Master Association to cease and desist from pursuing personal agendas at the expense of Coto de Caza resident’s safety, the board has cancelled the board meeting scheduled for January 6, 2006.

CZ'S BOD CREDIBILITY CRISIS! - “I am disappointed that the OC Sheriff’s Department has been unable to get their act together as it was Sheriff Corona who personally requested that we do not contract with the City of Rancho Santa Margarita” – Robert Varo, CZ Association President’s Letter January 2006

Dummy Wanted, ventriloquist in place - The objective is to Safely take Coto de Caza and turn it into a city. You see, Orange County Supervisor Tom Wilson already met his end of the bargain by repealing an ordinance that lets the Sheriff patrol unincorporated areas such as Coto. So now the board needs to keep their end of the bargain! – soon! No previous experience needed – spineless highly desirable

Safety Committee Fiasco II – NOW ON DVD - Yet One More Coto de Caza BOD Breach - As CotoBuzz readers know, for years we have been advocating a comprehensive public safety program for Coto de Caza. Days before the most recent fatality, we asked legal counsel to compel Keystone and the board to either consider any of our public safety proposals or articulate one of their own – we all know what happened.











We do not make jokes, we simply watch the Coto de Caza Board of directors, the LA Trash and the Orange Crud Repository and report the facts

The Forming of the Coto de Caza Public Safety Committee

The Forming of the Coto de Caza Public Safety Committee

As hard as this is to believe, this is consistent with the Varo/Mezger modus operandi – The excuse used by Mezger to fire the previous, more-than-qualified public security chairperson was that he “..though it was illegal to have spouses serve on a committee because of the undue concentration of power on one household..”

However, using their logic, it is OK to appoint paid consultants to the security committee. It is also OK to appoint residents outside the CZ Master Association to the security committee. But it is not OK to appoint well qualified association residents with backbone – just in case the spineless volunteers get any ideas.

So perhaps you can join the committee as a paid consultant?

---------------------------------------------------------------
securenotcoto wrote:


Prior to the last BOD meeting Philip Mitchell came over to where I was sitting and told me "Ed, your right on with the comments you made at the Safety Committee meeting", "and I will see to it that your on the committee or if your not I will not serve on it". That was mid July. Now its August and I was interviewed by Mr. Metzger to be a member of the Coto Safety Committee. The interview lasted for one and a half hours and Mr. Metzger stated that because I am NOT a "Home Owner" that I could not be a member of the Board of Directors but that I COULD be a member of a committee, like the Safety committee.Now its August 9th and I just get off the telephone with Philip Mitchell and I ask Philip "Whats going on with the Safety Committee" and he replied "That when I found out that you were not a Home Owner it changed everything because you cannot be on a committee unless your a home owner." I told Philip that he was wrong and that when I talked with Metzger he said I could not be a board member but that I could be on a committee." Philip stated that he received an email from Mr. Varo indicating who was on the committee and who is not on the committee. My name is on the list of people NOT ON THE COMMITTEE. Philip stated he had "Nothing to do with the final selection process."I mentioned to Philip that it's obvious that he and the Board of Directors don't feel that Security is a very big part of the Safety Committee because there is NO ONE ON THE COMMITTEE that has the Security background that I do. I worked at the Oso Left gate for a little over 8 months and I know whats going on in Security and whats not going on in Security. I have 8 years experience as a Security guard in gated communities. None is as poorly run as the one here at Coto.For everyone's information, I still know whats going on in Coto Security, and you know what? It's still a comedy of errors.



We do not make jokes, we simply watch the Coto de Caza Board of directors, the LA Trash and the Orange Crud Repository and report the facts

When is a retraction not a retraction? When it comes from the OCR!

When is a retraction not a retraction? When it comes from the OCR!
August 4, 2006
 

In the August 4 issue of the OCR’s CanyonLife, hidden under a picture of the Pet of the Week, appears an inconspicuous paragraph titled Clarification that reads”
“Coto resident Ed Caruso and Board President Bob Varo of the CZ Master Association disagreed on whether Varo, in a private meeting, told Caruso that he planned to fire the California Highway Patrol from traffic duty within the community. A story in the July 14 edition of Canyon Life/Rancho Santa Margarita News about a Public Safety Committee session may have been unclear in describing the exchange between the two men”
So after the OCR City Editor “paraphrased” the story to make Varo the hero, now we get a “retrophase clarification”! –And only after days of relentless attempts by Caruso to get the OCR to print a Retraction – Not a retrophrase! 
 
par·a·phrase    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (pr-frz)
n.1. A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning.  
The restatement of texts in other words as a studying or teaching device. 
 
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
 
Request to OCR for Retraction - Ed Caruso 
My journey started on July 14, 2006 and today is August 2, 2006 and it's still not resolved. This is after 12 emails and many, many phone calls. I called Ron Gonzales of the OCR this afternoon and he said that either him or D. Foley will call me today or tomorrow. I also requested an email as well. Here is the history.Email # 1 from Ed Caruso to Mark Eades dated July 15th 
Sir,My name is Ed Caruso and you mentioned my name in the subject article. The least you could have done was to quote me accurately.
 I started off by telling the members that I was a former employee of UPS and that I asked for a meeting with the Coto BOD. What I got was a private meeting with the President of the Board, Mr. Varo.We talked about several items in the meeting that lasted for well over 1 hour and one of the points that MR. Varo told me was when the Welcome Center is completed and he moves the Call Center people, the Transponder people and the UPS staff into that building, that he was going to make a work area for the Sheriff’s department and then he was going to fire the CHP again. I said "Mr. Varo, is that what you told me? His reply was, "No that is not true".  I then replied "Mr. Varo that is a Lie".I am requesting that you write a retraction and print the correct conversation that we had which is the above statement. 
Waiting for your reply. 
Ed Caruso
Email # 2 from Ed Caruso to Coto Buzz Group dated July 19th
I sent Mark Eades an e-mail about the article where he mentions my
name and requested that he write a retraction. I left two telephone
calls for him and left him two messages. I have received no replies
up to this moment.

Monday around midday I called the main office for the OC Register
asking for Mark Eades Manager. The secretary gave me Melissa Jones
name and she told me that she would have Ms. Jones call me on
Tuesday. I gave the secretary my cell phone number and said that I
would be working until 10 PM on Tuesday evening so have her call me
cell phone.

Around 4 PM or so Ms. Jones called my cell phone and stated that she
had called my home phone and left two messages for me. I stated to
Ms. Jones I specifically asked the OCR secretary to have you call my
cell phone because I'm still at work and will be here until 10 PM
tonight.

I then told her that Mr. Eades miss quoted me and that I want a
retraction printed to include the correct statement that I asked Mr.
Varo to confirm at the meeting. Ms. Jones said that Mr. Eades had
included my exact statement in his article and that "I, as the City
Editor changed it and paraphrased it because we have no knowledge
that Mr. Varo made that comment to you." I quickly replied, so you
are taking the position of believing Mr. Varo as telling the truth
and that I am a liar? So in your mind Mr. Varo is a hero and I am a
rat? She replied, "no, that's not what I'm saying". I said it sure
sounds that way to me. You are putting "Your" spin on it and telling
the BOD's side of the issue. What ever happened to fair and
impartial reporting? I guess the OCR does not believe in that.

I then stated to Ms. Jones that I was very busing and requested her
to do me a big favor, and she replied, "If I can". I requested Ms.
Jones to e-mail exactly what her position is so that I could try and
better understand her reasoning. She stated That she WOULD do that
and I said When I get home this evening around 10:15PM I will the
first thing I will do when I get home is to check my e-mail. You
will never guess what happened when I checked my email. HER EMAIL
WAS NOT IN MY IN BOX.. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Now it's today, Wednesday July 19th at 2:30pm and I called Ms. Jones
phone and left her a message and telling her how disappointed I was
that I still have not received her email that she said she would
send me.

I then called the OCR main number and asked for the name of the
person that Melissa Jones reports to and the same secretary that
answered the phone on Monday answered the phone today. I told her
who I was and she recognized my name immediately and started making
excuses for how busy Ms. Jones was. I replied, everybody is busy in
today's world but being busy is no reason for not doing what she
said she would do and that was to send me an e-mail.

The secretary said that she just spoke with Ms. Jones and if you
call her right now she will talk to you. I said transfer me to her
number and she said "You have to call her direct".

I called her direct and, Your right, I got her answering machine.

What a tangled web we weave when we try to deceive.  
Email # 3 to Chris Anderson, OCR Publisher dated July 20thMr. Anderson, the following email I sent to your reporter Mark Eades on July 16, 2006: (See above)This email I posted on a local web site that involves my dealings with your city Editor: (See above)
Melissa Jones, and a conversation I had with her and what she promised to do for me:
I sent Mark Eades an e-mail about the article where he mentions my name
and requested that he write a retraction. I left two telephone calls for
him and left him two messages. I have received no replies up to this
moment.

Monday around midday I called the main office for the OC Register
asking for Mark Eades Manager. The secretary gave me Melissa Jones name
and she told me that she would Have Ms. Jones call me on Tuesday. I gave
the secretary my cell phone number and said that I would be working
until 10 PM on Tuesday evening so have her call me cell phone.

Around 4 PM or so Ms. Jones called my cell phone and stated that she had
called my home phone and left two messages for me. I stated to Ms. Jones
I specifically asked the OCR secretary to have you call my cell phone
because I'm still at work and will be here until 10 PM tonight.

I then told her that Mr. Eades miss quoted me and that I want a
retraction printed to include the correct statement that I asked Mr.
Varo to confirm at the meeting. Ms. Jones said that Mr. Eades had
included my exact statement in his article and that "I, as the City
Editor changed it and paraphrased it because we have no knowledge that
Mr. Varo made that comment to you." I quickly replied, so you are taking
the position of believing Mr. Varo as telling the truth and that I am a
liar?. So in your mind Mr. Varo is a hero and I am a rat? She replied,
"no, that's not what I'm saying". I said it sure sounds that way to
me. You are putting "Your" spin on it and telling the BOD's side of the
issue. What ever happened to fair and impartial reporting? I guess the
OCR does not believe in that.

I then stated to Ms. Jones that I was very busing and requested her to
do me a big favor, and she replied "If I can". I requested Ms.
Jones to e-mail exactly what her position is so that I could try and
better understand her reasoning.. She stated That she WOULD do that and
I said When I get home this evening around 10:15PM I will the first
thing I will do when I get home is to check my e-mail. You will never
guess what happened when I checked my email. HER EMAIL WAS NOT IN MY IN BOX.. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Now it's today, Wednesday July 19th at 2:30pm and I called Ms. Jones phone
and left her a message and telling her how disappointed I was that I
still have not received her email that she said she would send me.

I then called the OCR main number and asked for the name of the person
that Melissa Jones reports to and the same secretary that answered the
phone on Monday answered the phone today. I told her who I was and she
recognized my name immediately and started making excuses for how busy
Ms. Jones was. I replied, everybody is busy in today's world but being
busy is no reason for not doing what she said she would do and that was
to send me an e-mail.

The secretary said that she just spoke with Ms. Jones and if you call
her right now she will talk to you. I said transfer me to her number and
she said "You have to call her direct".

I called her direct and, Your right, I got her answering machine.

What a tangled web we weave when we try to deceive.

Ed Caruso
Mr. Anderson, as you can tell I am very upset with a couple of people on your staff.
I am asking you to step in and order Melissa Jones to print a retraction for openers
and then send me an email explaining why she believed Mr. Varo was telling the Truth
and that I was telling a lie. 
If you, your paper and your staff believe in "Fair and un biased reporting" then here is youropportunity to prove it.
I hope I see the retraction and a return email from you.
Ed Caruso
 
Email # 4 copied from the OCR dated July 21stIf you have a correction or want to make a comment about the OCR
here is what you do. Here is the article that is in every edition of
the OCR.

CORRECTIONS

We will correct factual errors promptly.
Call 714 796-7951

e-mail: corrections@ocregister.com

Legal demands for corrections must be in writing and sent to the publisher at
Box 11626, Santa Ana, Ca. 92711-1626

To comment on our
Coverage:
Call Dennis Foley at 714 796-6011
e-mail: dfoley@ocregister.com

Email # 5 from E Caruso to D. Foley dated July 22nd
Mr. Foley, 
Thanks for taking the time to listen to my complaint. I look forward to your reply. I would prefer your reply in an email.Thanks
Ed Caruso
 
Email # 6 from Melissa Jones ,City Editor OCR to Ed Caruso dated July 24thMr. Caruso,

I'm writing in response to our recent phone conversation and your
request for a retraction. Our reporter, Mark Eades made note of the
conversation you have referred to in your e-mail and made me aware of it
when writing his story. As the city editor, I chose to ask Mark to
paraphrase the information for the sake of making it clearer for readers
who had no access to your private meeting with Mr. Varo. In paraphrasing
the information I was careful to make sure that the controversial issue of
whether the CHP would remain in Coto was brought out, and that Mr. Varo's
response became part of the public record. I was not comfortable in
printing a direct quote about a private conversation that could not be
verified (regarding either party). I believe the paraphrase correctly
informs the readers that a feeling of uncertainty regarding the CHP's
future in Coto exists in some parts of the community.

Thank you for making your concerns known to us. We strive to accurately
represent the questions and concerns of our readers.

Sincerely,
Melissa Jones,
City Editor
Canyon Life and RSM News
(949) 454-7373 
Email # 8 from Ed Caruso to Melissa Jones , OCR dated July 24thMs. Jones

I was very disappointed in your refusal to publish a retraction. First, your
use of the term paraphrase is incorrect. Secondly, your "paraphrase" allowed
the goat to look like a hero and vice versa. You make me look like the goat
in essentially a defamatory remark. I resent that.

What you should have done was to either not report the incident at all, or
simply report it and state that "Ed Caruso" alleged that what Mr. Varo said
was not true based on a private conversation. Now THAT would have been a
paraphrase.

If you provide me your business address I will purchase a dictionary and
send it to you.

If you believe that your reporting of this article is fair and unbiased you
really need to take me up on my offer for the dictionary because you need
one badly.

I am requesting one more time for you to retract the story and print the
TRUTH.

Ed Caruso

Email # 9 from Ed Caruso to Melissa Jones dated July 27th
Are you going to answer my last email to you? I hope to hear back from you
by Friday July 28th by 5:00PM.

Looking forward to your reply.

Ed Caruso


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Caruso"
To:
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: request for retraction
Email # 10 from Ed Caruso to D. Foley OCR Dated July 28th
You said you would get back to me. When is that going to be?

Ed Caruso


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Caruso"
To: "D Foley"
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:30 PM
Subject: Fw: request for retraction
Email # 11 from D. Foley to Ed Caruso dated July 28th
 
Thanks for your patience, Ed. Should be soon.

Cordially,
Dennis

Dennis Foley
Reader Innovation Editor
Internships, Recruiting & Training Coordinator
Phone 714.796.6011
Fax: 714.796.7820
625 N. Grand Ave.
Santa Ana, CA 92701Email # 12 from Ron Gonzales OCR to Ed Caruso dated July 28th
Mr. Caruso: Your request for a correction is undergoing review. I'll let
you know when we've made a decision. Thanks for communicating your concerns
to the newspaper.

Ron Gonzales
Orange County Register
(949) 454-7334

RELATED STORIES:
The Orange County Register Adporting:
In the coverage of the Coto de Caza safety committee-of-one held July 11, 2006, the July 14 issue of the CanyonLife reports that “During the meeting Coto resident Ed Caruso asked if reports that the CHP would be fired from conducting traffic patrols...
 
 
CZ MASTERS BOD/ OC REGISTER CONSPIRACY – CZ MAFIA? YOU BE THE JUDGE!   As CotoBuzz readers know, we have been working for some time on a model to help us understand the relationship between the CZ Board’s multiple breaches, and the output from the OC Register.
CITY HOOD TOWN HALL MEETING CANCELLED!  – BRING BACK LAW AND ORDER TO COTO DE CAZA! Because of our efforts to persuade the CZ Master Association to cease and desist from pursuing personal agendas at the expense of Coto de Caza resident’s safety, the board has cancelled the board meeting scheduled for January 6, 2006.
OC REGISTER COMMUNITY JOURNALISM: Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire! - Recently Michael D. Capaldi, a partner in the business law firm of Spach, Capaldi & Waggaman, LLP and a director of The Lincoln Club or Orange County asked a rhetorical question: What is a liar?Agenda Journalism by the Orange County Register or Adporting?
The January 25, 2006 issue of the OC Register reports that “ Residents living in unincorporated areas of the county will get more law enforcement on their streets by the end of February”.

This of course is due to the recent seminal...
Coto de Caza Late Breaking News from the Los Angeles Times
In an article published January 23, 2006, Daniel Yi, LA Times Staff Reporter has done what the OC Register has been unable to do in over two years: present a balanced view of traffic control within Coto de Caza.

Lawless, Values-less, Spiritual-less Coto de Caza
When we first moved to Coto de Caza over 12 years ago, we really thought there was No Place Like Coto. Shortly thereafter CNN/Money discovered Coto as well and included it in their list of One of the Best Places to Live/Best Places to Retire.
CZ MASTER ASSOCIATION (COTO DE CAZA BOD) FORMAL COMPLAINT
I am writing on behalf of Coto De Caza Concerned Citizens and as a former Board Member of the CZ Master Association, a 3,500 member homeowners association located in Orange County, California. This letter constitutes a formal complaint against the CZ...

Coto de Caza, CA. - Public Safety Invitations
If you are as concerned as we are about safety (accident prevention, crime prevention, vandalism and invasion of privacy), please join us January 10th at 9:30 am on the first floor of the Board Hearing Room at 10 Civic Center Plaza in Santa Ana, CA. where... 



We do not make jokes, we simply watch the Coto de Caza Board of directors, the LA Trash and the Orange Crud Repository and report the facts

Justice for Mr. Manian – Coto the Caza Style Revisited.

As CotoBuzz readers know, we have been in contact with the Orange County DA to discuss the various irregularities in the community. One particular issue that we continue to work on is Justice for Mr. Manian, who was killed by a teen driver March 12, 2006 at the intersection of North Hampton Place and Lexington Way in Coto de Caza

A Coto girl was arrested, charged with vehicular manslaughter, felony hit and run and resisting and delaying or obstructing an officer. Under these conditions, the least we had expected was is to have the girl’s legal guardians face certain charges. What, with board sympathizers willing to blame Mr. Maninan “for violating the vehicle code..”, and giving the kid a pass!

In various conversations with Susan Kang Schroeder, Deputy District Attorney, she was always careful to tell us that by law, the DA is unable to discuss the case. So, we tracked down Deputy District Attorney Steve Mitchell of the Felony Projects Unit, who prosecuted the case. We got no information from him either.

We now know that the girl did not spend much time in jail and is attending summer school!

We have also been able to track down Mr. Manian’s next of kin, and expect to publish a brief biographical sketch, to keep his memory alive.

This friends, is Justice, Coto de Caza Style!



RELATED STORIES:

JUSTICE, COTO DE CAZA STYLE
We just had a constructive, and at times very heated, conversation with Orange County’s Deputy District Attorney, Susan Schroeder regarding the tragic accident that occurred March 12, 2006 at the intersection of North Hampton Place and Lexington Way...

Mr. Manian Tragic Death and a Tale of Two Coto’s
On Sunday 3-12-2006, at 1.30 pm, 75 year-old Mr. Manian was riding his bicycle and was struck by a 16 year old female at the intersection of Lexington Way and North Hampton Place. The teen was subsequently arrested and charged with vehicular manslaughter, felony hit and run and resisting and delaying or obstructing an officer.

COTO DE CAZA ROOTS: USE OF "NON-RESIDENT VOLUNTEERS" April 30, 2006
The current Coto de Caza board of directors came to power with the help of non-resident Paul Young. Young is executive vice president with the CRI. CRI has been accused in the past of financial irregularities, which allegedly triggered an investigation...

Blatant manipulation of 2006 CZ Master Association Elections Continues
When the May 2006 issue of the CA Master Association President's Letter contained erroneous information regarding the number of remaining candidates for the board of directors, we published an errata and called on those responsible for managing the...
INTENSIVE VS. PENSIVE PUBLIC SAFETY: COTO DE CAZA Vs. LADERA RANCH
Intensive Versus Pensive
CZ board member, Metzger has characterized the current Coto de Caza traffic patrol as “intensive” – only after the board was coerced into bringing back the CHP – the problem is that since the association has...




We do not make jokes, we simply watch the Coto de Caza Board of directors, the LA Trash and the Orange Crud Repository and report the facts

Orange County DA to Review Complaints against the Coto de Caza local governing body and service providers.

In our continued commitment to public safety within Coto de Caza, and searching for justice for Mr. Morteza Manian, earlier this week (Monday July 17, 2006), CotoBuzz had the opportunity to meet with Susan Kang Schroeder, Orange County District Attorney Public Affairs Counsel and candidly present complaints previously filed with the Attorney General, the California Bar and Freedom Communications Board of Directors (owner of the Orange County Register), against the Coto de Caza local governing body and service providers.

At the top of the list is Depraved Indifference that resulted in two traffic fatalities, including the tragic death of Mr. Manian when he was struck by an under-aged hit-and-run driver (March 12, 2006 at the intersection of North Hampton Place and Lexington Way in Coto de Caza). The kid was eventually arrested and charged with vehicular manslaughter, felony hit and run and resisting and delaying or obstructing an officer. By law, Susan Kang Schroeder cannot tell us how the case is or is not moving or whether the teen’s parents are being held accountable. Ironically, board sympathizers have indicted the victim claiming that Mr. Manian “violated the vehicle code”!

Although Susan Kang Schroeder was very clear about the Orange County District Attorney can and cannot do (jurisdictional issues as well as workload) in these situations, she did promise to schedule a review of our most pressing issues.


RELATED STORIES:

Coto de Caza Teen Held Responsible for Second Traffic Fatality In Three Months Arrested and Charged - CHP Officer Chris Goodwin has confirmed that the Coto de Caza teen responsible for the second fatal traffic accident in less than three months has been arrested and charged.
Justice Coto de Caza Style IS THIS JUSTICE? - We just had a constructive, and at times very heated, conversation with Orange County’s Deputy District Attorney, Susan Schroeder regarding the tragic accident that occurred March 12, 2006 at the intersection of North Hampton Place and Lexington Way in Coto de Caza, resulting in the death of 75 year-old Morteza Manian
Invitation to First Public Safety Committee Meeting Since First Traffic Fatalities: DaVaro Deception - Law and Order ! - Invitation to First Public Safety Committee Meeting Since First Traffic Fatalities in Last Ten Years
If you care as much as we do about public safety and property values (usually associated with the sate of security in any given community) within...
DaVaro Deception - Law and Order ! We don’t need no stinking law, WE are the law!
VARO/MEZGER/HILL: Hell now, won’t go! – we will not leave the Coto de Caza board under any circumstances!Besides public safety, what has sparked the interest of several Coto Discussion Forum participants and CotoBlogzz readers is the issue of...
DaVaro Deception - From Best to Pest in 60!
The evolution of private security management within Coto de Caza very much follows the evolution of the Coto de Caza board of directors make up - to the incumbent board of directors:
The DaVaro Deception and the Gospel According to Mezger
For years, the DaVaro Deception has led Coto de Caza resident’s believe that public safety was the board’s number one concern, while repressing initiatives designed to prevent crime & vandalism and save lives, and promoting personal agendas.
The DaVaro Deception: Wrong and Misleading Information RE: Coto de Caza Service Provider Performance
The July 2006 issue of CotoVoice (the Coto de Caza subsidized newsletter) extols the virtues of Mosaic, the landscaping consultant by stating that Mosaic “..has been an integral support mechanism that evaluates the landscape contractors non a daily...
Coto de Caza May 2006, Crime and Vandalism Report
The latest C&V report show the total number of offenses for Coto de Caza reached an all time high in May 2006. It also shows that when it comes to suspects profile, age does not seem to matter.


DaVaro Deception: The Involution (yes, not evolution) of the Safety Committee - The Coto de Caza Board of directors meeting held, appropriately on July 13, 2006, provided yet more evidence of the involution of the safety committee




We do not make jokes, we simply watch the Coto de Caza Board of directors, the LA Trash and the Orange Crud Repository and report the facts

Where is Waldo?

It is fair to say that under current business environment, corporate accountability and transparency are extremely important, and corporate officers and legal counsel stay as far away as possible from anything that could be construed as conflict of interest or unethical – more so for non-for-profit corporations.

So, what can we say about a non-for profit corporation responsible for the disbursement of $9,000,000.00 per year, so enamored with secrecy that they demand, as a condition for volunteers to join any committee that they agree to abide by a confidentiality agreement?

Particularly for committees such as the landscape and public safety committees, which combined spend close to 80% of the total yearly budget – yet are prohibited to even discuss details with the rest of the shareholders?

This attitude mostly resembles that of the Chinese government intent on keeping a lid (different lid from that used by Varo/Mezger/Hill) on dissention by encouraging kids to rat on their parents – the ultimate shareholders!


We do not make jokes, we simply watch the Coto de Caza Board of directors, the LA Trash and the Orange Crud Repository and report the facts

The Orange County Registger Adporting

In the coverage of the Coto de Caza safety committee-of-one held July 11, 2006, the July 14 issue of the CanyonLife reports that “During the meeting Coto resident Ed Caruso asked if reports that the CHP would be fired from conducting traffic patrols within the community were true. Board President Varo stated they were not true and the CHP would not be fired”

What it does not report is that when the same reporter quoted Lyle Schieder, former board member, to the effect that UPS, the Coto private security company, was not providing any patrol service, the Best City Manager Ever (formerly known as the Keystone general manager), simply attributed this to “incorrect reporting”.

It also does not report that in private (we have sworn affidavit to this effect) Varo explicitly stated that he is planning to fire the CHP as soon as the Welcome Home Center is converted into a Sheriff’s sub-station.

Anyone wants to bet that when the public safety committee is finally seated (estimated to be around 2050), they will recommend that the Coto turns into a city and that the CHP be fired?



We do not make jokes, we simply watch the Coto de Caza Board of directors, the LA Trash and the Orange Crud Repository and report the facts

DaVaro Deception: The Involution (yes, not evolution) of the Safety Committee

The Coto de Caza Board of directors meeting held, appropriately on July 13, 2006, provided yet more evidence of the involution of the safety committee:

Just coming off a landmark public safety committee-of-one meeting held July 11, 2007, the Coto de Caza board, in a bold move that assures more due diligence in the selection of public safety committee members, than that exhibited in the firing of the CHP, the firing of the best Security Director (eventually replaced by an OTJ manager-trainee), the firing of the largest private security company in the world, replaced by the yet-to-be-seen compelling program and offer (and fashion and demeanor reserved for private parties), and even the selection of those responsible for the disbursement of the $5,000,000.00 year landscaping budget, is to conform to the following process:

The current public safety committee chairperson is to interview 13 (here we go again with the number 13) potential committee members.

· The chairperson will say either yes or no these candidates and then forward statement of candidacy to the board.

· The board will then interview the selected remaining candidates to see if they can competently uphold the board’s views (as in pursue personal agendas and recommend to fire the CHP)

· The board will then make a final determination as to who ends up on the most important public safety committee

· And just in case anyone is left to fill the public safety committee, the Best City Manager Ever (according to Varo, and formerly known as the Keystone general manager), made it sure that

· "Lets not forget to make sure that the members that the BOD appoints to the Safety Committee, that they sign confidential agreements where they agree that they will not divulge this confidential information to anyone besides the board and especially not talk to the press”

Finally we get it! The selection of the public safety committee IS rocket science, which is why the BOD has deemed it confidential! This is why the CHP is not being used (for free) to hold public safety awareness campaigns- This is Confidential! – The board of directors wants to hold this from the press – Now, THAT is Involution!





We do not make jokes, we simply watch the Coto de Caza Board of directors, the LA Trash and the Orange Crud Repository and report the facts

Coto de Caza May 2006, Crime and Vandalism Report

The latest C&V report show the total number of offenses for Coto de Caza reached an all time high in May 2006. It also shows that when it comes to suspects profile, age does not seem to matter.


Source: OCSO as commissioned by CotoBuzz, © CotoBuzz
SHERIFF'S REPORT FOR COTO DE CAZA
COTO DE CAZA CRIME TRENDS Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06

Totals Reports (Part I, II & III) 18 22 14 23 24

Part I
Aggravated Assault 0 2 1 0 1
Burglary 2 2 3 3 5
Larceny/Theft 4 2 1 3 3

Part II
Other Assaults 6 1 1 5 4
Fraud 2 5 2 0 0
Other Offenses 1 3 0 1 0
Suspicion 2 0 0 0 0
Vandalism 0 3 0 0 1
Vehicle Violations 0 1 0 0 2
Disorderly Conduct 0 0 1 1 0

Part III - Non-Criminal Incidents
Prank 1 0 0 0 0
Other Non-Criminal 0 3 3 2 0
Mental Inebriates 0 0 1 0 0
Medical Aid 0 0 1 1 1
Non-Criminal 0 3 3 5 4
Assist Outside Agency 0 0 0 1 1

Total Number of Domestic Violence Cases 1 1
Domestic Abuse 1 3 2 0 1

Total Number of Arrests 1 0 0 1 2


Age Breakdown for Suspects Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06
17 years and under 0 2 0 0 0
18-20 years 0 0 0 1 1
21-24 years 0 1 0 0 1
25-29 years 1 0 0 0 0
30-34 years 0 1 0 1 0
35-39 years 1 3 0 0 2
40-44 years 1 0 0 0 1
45-49 years 0 0 0 0 0
50 years or older 0 0 3 0 1

The DaVaro Deception: Wrong and Misleading Information RE: Public Safety Within Coto de Caza
The Information being distributed to residents by Keystone (undated and with no title), regarding public safety, like the information provided to the Orange County Register is misleading and plain wrong:

T
he DaVaro Deception and the Gospel According to Mezger
For years, the DaVaro Deception has led Coto de Caza resident’s believe that public safety was the board’s number one concern, while repressing initiatives designed to prevent crime & vandalism and save lives, and promoting personal agendas.

Grup City – Coto de Caza ......Of Peter Pan, Grups and Coto d Caza
As the Coto de Caza board of directors controlled by Varo/Mezger/Hill continue to handle public safety as a Tar Baby, it is only appropriate to consider a tag line for Coto de Caza once Varo/Mezger/Hill accomplish their goal of turning Coto into a City....

COTO DE CAZA CHP TRAFFIC REPORT FOR MAY 2006
The May 2006 CHP statistics for Coto de Caza is consistent with the Coto de Caza board of director’s inaction with regards to public safety: These show an accident rate rapidly approaching the record-breaking 2005 that lead to the first traffic...

Deliverance – the Coto de Caza District Delegate Committee Movie
In an incestuous move reminiscent of the movie Deliverance, Varo/Mezger/Hill, have done what they refused to do with Coto residents concerned with public safety: use association funds to promote their self-preservation:
Bicycle Safety Within Coto de Caza
During the June 8, 2006 Coto de Caza board meeting Yo Orduno described a public safety situation in the Summerfield district including a warning about an increase of rush hour cyclists in and around Vista Del Verde, some even riding pairwise making the...
The Coto de Caza Government Paradox
California is the direct democracy capital of the nation. California uses the direct initiative process, which enables voters to bypass the Legislature and have an issue of concern put directly on the ballot for voter approval or rejection. There are two...
Rhianna Six Month’s Anniversary Mr. Manian’s Three Month’s Anniversary
It has been six months since Rhianna Woolsey died (December 7, 2005) in the first traffic fatality in Coto de Caza in the last ten years. Sadly, this week also marks the Three Month Anniversary of Mr. Morteza Manian’s death, as he was struck by a...
COTO DE CAZA's CZ MASTER ASSOCIATION INTENT TO PETITION TO RECALL MITCH HILL
Despite the many artificial road blocks created by the CZ Master Association Board of directors during the 2006 District Delegate Elections (including tampering with the election process, distributing wrong and misleading information, and using weapons of...



We do not make jokes, we simply watch the Coto de Caza Board of directors, the LA Trash and the Orange Crud Repository and report the facts

DaVaro Deception: An Argument for NO! NO! NO! ON AB SEVEN, SEVEN, OH!

The best argument we can present against AB770 can be found in the performance of Coto de Caza board of directors led by Varo/Mezger/Hill

NO! NO! NO! ON AB770
AB770 is SB551 in drag masquerading as CAI's full employment act
July 03, 2006
By Donie Vanitzian (View author info)


Los Angeles, California -
DEED-RESTRICTED TITLES ARE INFERIOR TO ALL OTHER TITLES

The message is clear: Do not buy a condominium, townhouse, co-operative, mobile home, or single-family dwelling if it is located in a common interest development, has a homeowners association, and a board of directors. Don't do it.

If you have a deed-restriction on your title, sell and get the hell out while you are able. That is, before this legislature passes more bad bills and you are stuck paying for their mistakes and it becomes impossible to extricate yourself from this type of property ownership. If the legislators are serious about giving owners a bill of rights, they need not look far. They must:

1) Codify penalties against boards, management company owners/personnel, and ass. attorneys;
2) Codify the disclosure of "risks and liabilities" to all potential buyers;
3) Enlist the assistance of the State Bar of California to make filing complaints against ass. attorneys less intimidating, and with measures preventing retaliation against complainants;
4) Codify an owner "victim fund" consisting of prompt restitution to the harmed owner because of an association's wrongdoing;
5) Codify a "Lemon Law" that allows a 'no questions asked' 14-day return of deed-restricted property to the seller. This already exists in California time share statutes;
6) Allow owners to tax-deduct all assessment payments made to the association for any reason;
7) At the time of sale, refund to the owner all monies paid into the association's reserve account with interest.

MISUNDERSTANDING THE MEANING OF "OVERSIGHT?"

Have you noticed how none of these Senators and Assemblypersons can write a SHORT bill that encompasses only "one section" of the statute? Mullins bill "amends" Civil Code section 1373 to ADD another Civil Code section 1363.7, and ADD another Chapter (11) to the Civil Code.
All of the recent bills are adding bulk to the statutes. They are road hogs eating up space because the legislator wants his or her name in the books. We all PAY the price for their narcissism and arrogance, let alone their sell-out to campaign contributors and contributions and heavy-handed influence in laws WE must LIVE by.

Owners are reminded that such industries do not have a "vested interest" in property. ONLY owners have a "vested interest" in property. Such industries have an interest in getting PAID - BY YOU. The industry's arguments in favor or against such bills, all revolve around industry goals.

It is imperative owners understand that a homeowner's disagreement with a bill is for fundamentally "different reasons" than an industry composed of parasites disagreeing with the same bill for "their own" reasons.

Aside from his inconsistencies, promises, and breaches, one of the unfortunate realities plaguing Democrat Assemblyman Mullin's flailing ombudsman bill is that he chose to adopt the industry's language which is notably attributable to Community Association Institute (CAI) and its long-arm lobby CLAC. Part of the language right out of the ombudsman bill states:

"Anecdotal accounts of abuses within common interest developments create continuing public demand for reform of common interest development law. This results in frequent changes to the law, making it more difficult to understand and apply and imposing significant transitional costs on common interest developments statewide. By collecting empirical data on the nature and incidence of problems within common interest developments, the Common Interest Development Ombudsperson provides a sound basis for prioritizing reform efforts, thereby increasing the stability of common interest development law."

Including that unprofessional and indefinable language shows a blatant disregard for the ownership rights of all residential deed-restricted titleholders. That language alone should be enough to ipso facto kill this bill-but homeowners will look aside and chant the same old tired refrain of "but we need something" or worse yet "something is better than nothing." No. "Something" is NEVER better than "nothing."

FOLSOM PRISON CC&RS. OWNERS BEWARE: YOU MAY GET WHAT YOU ASK FOR

By supporting bad bills, owners are asking for "Folsom Prison CC&Rs." As with much of the bad bills we are witnessing making it to the California Assembly and Senate floors, AB770 is inconsistent with good government.

1) It fails to cap it's "own" expenditures;
2) Is funded only by one segment of property owners (residential deed-restricted owners) which amounts to double taxation without representation for this class of owners;
3) It continues to use nebulous, inconsistent, and indefinable language -- leaving itself open to challenges in court;
4) It prejudices homeowners rather than help them;
5) Worse yet, it "backdoors" the already FAILED Common Interest Development Bureau which was nothing more than a bank for at least ten other State Departments (many were unnamed in the proposed statute);
6) AND constitutes a guaranteed RISK to homeowner personal assets.

Where's the democracy in having bad bills like this rammed down our throats?

OMBUDSMAN LIMITS, SEGREGATES, PICKS AND CHOOSES, TYPE OF DISPUTES

The ombudsman will limit the types of disputes it hears. Proof of this was garnered way back in 2003! At that time, the California Law Revision Commission published its recommendation regarding "Alternative Dispute Resolution in Common Interest Developments." It stated that such "disputes typically fall into one of several categories:" The problem? Though the following are pigeonholes created by the CLRC, they fall short of predicting what the ombudsman office will and will not categorize as "acceptable" disputes. Interesting that the CLRC feels confident that only THEY can determine what category disputes exist but they owners can't. Be prepared to be "pigeonholed" at the ombudsman's office too. They will make owners conform whether they want to or not.

(1) Financial disputes (maintenance, common charges, special assessments, fines and penalties, restrictions on resale or transfer, access to books and records).
(2) Architectural controls (repairs, alterations, painting, decor, landscaping).
(3) Pet issues (barking dogs, wandering cats, animal waste).
(4) Use of private space (leasing/subleasing, commercial or professional use).
(5) Personal interactions (facilities use, parking, noise, rudeness).

Nearly each of those problem areas could have easily been addressed with legislation meant to protect the owners' rights, but not one legislator felt it was important enough.

The California Law Revision Commission also stated that "good information is not available concerning the incidence of disputes of this type in California. They are not uncommon, however. Data is available from other jurisdictions in which there is government oversight of CID operations. That data suggests that a dispute reaches the point where it becomes serious enough to lodge a complaint approximately once per 200 dwelling units per year. In California, with its estimated 3.5 million CID dwelling units, that would yield about 175,000 "serious" disputes in CIDs each year."

Ask yourself, is that a good enough reason to tax deed-restricted titleholders to fund a bureaucracy that gathers data?

ASS. ATTORNEYS HAVE BRILLIANT PLAN: MAKE OWNERS PAY FOR THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION

The goal of AB770 and its stepsister SB551 is to create administrative gridlock that the ass. attorneys and their firms will control and profit from. Logically, where do owners think the education propaganda will be generated? It is unlikely that the industry will allow the ombudsman to order copies of the book Villa Appalling! Destroying the Myth of Affordable Community Living, will they?

NO CAP ON FEES COLLECTED. NO AGENCY OVERSEEING THE OMBUDSMAN

Aside from no cap on spending and no cap on fees collected from owners, there is no agency that owners can file complaints against the ombudsman. Watch for this legislative trick: the legislators will remove the word "fees" or lower the amount of fees in order to get the bill passed, but then add it back into the statute "after" the bill passes.

NO CAP ON GOVERNMENT SPENDING OF FEES COLLECTED

There is no cap on the department's spending. There is no cap on the fee amounts charged. There is no cap on the fee amounts collected. Owners: if there is no cap on these amounts, you will never know by how much your monthly assessments will be raised each month, each year. You will not be able to calculate your risks.

NO VICTIM FUND; NO RESTITUTION

Presumably the ombudsman will be attempting to rectify the wrongs committed against owners who have a vested interest in PROPERTY. However, the ombudsman bill makes no provisions for restitution to owners for their injuries or harm done. Think about this closely. The owner goes to the ombudsman supposedly seeking a "resolution." The resolution might include restitution for injuries caused to the owner. Yet this bill is intentionally silent on that matter.

NO PENALTIES FOR BOARDS

What is so difficult about imposing penalties against recalcitrant boards? This legislature will not do it. Short of that, the legislature should impose a moratorium on building common interest developments and impose a moratorium on adding additional legislation to the Davis-Stirling Act.

NOT BENIGN, AB770 IS DANGEROUS

Read carefully, this bill like its wicked stepsister SB551, professes to have the power to impose fines on associations BUT ONLY IF they LOSE disputes with the owners-the obstacle course laid out in front of owners who might have used the so-called bureau, makes it impossible to accomplish "anything" in a timely manner, let alone get anything of substance actually "accomplished" at all.

Just like Nevada, Florida, Arizona (some defend Arizona's system, I do not for reasons that will not be furthered in this California paper), Virginia, Hawaii, and it goes on and on. All are black holes for unaccountable cash generated by no one else but owners.

Regarding the Nevada Ombudsman's office, someone told me "there is a surplus of several million dollars. The only money being spent is for state funded CAI seminars that work out to something like $5,000 per attendee, but 6, maybe 8 people attend."

After losing, Lowenthal chants the disingenuous democratic mantra: "Let's hear from the homeowners." Excuseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee me! Like he hasn't heard from homeowners! What planet is this guy on? Owners should seriously consider recalling Lowenthal from office.

NO TAX DEDUCTION FOR OWNER PAYMENTS TO THE STATE -- AB770 ASSUMES OWNERS HAVE EXPENDABLE INCOME THAT THEY WILL "D-O-N-A-T-E" TO OMBUDSMAN

This bill makes "fees," er, uh, strike that. This bill makes "donations" payable directly to the Secretary of State! There is no tax deduction for your payments to the Secretary of State for all these fee-reimbursing donations that go toward funding these bureaucracies claiming to help "you." In fact, there is no guarantee they will help you at all or that your grievances will be addressed. That decision will be decided by some bureaucrat who will tell you: "You don't have standing." "This is outside our jurisdiction." Those are the typical government catchall phrases for being able to collect money but not produce the goods.

Just what homeowners need: the bill admits there is a FISCAL IMPACT. The result of a fiscal impact is simple: It costs "owners" money. It doesn't cost the "public" money, it cost "owners" money -- this is not a fee that will be shared with the general public as all other Government Departments do. This is money that owners will pay directly to a special fee-collecting department AFTER they pay their monthly credit card bill$, car and home in$urance bill$, homeowner a$$ociation regular, $pecial, and emergency, a$$e$$ment$, student loan$, college tuition, health in$urance, gas$ water electric bill$, telephone$, ga$oline, car maintenance, car in$urance, doctor bill$, medication$, and on it goes.

NO DISCLOSURE OF RISKS PRIOR TO PURCHASE

Legislators keep asking for solutions, but frankly, THEY created the PROBLEM -- THEY need to FIX IT. One of the first things that needs to be done, is to require definitive and comprehensive disclosures OF EVERYTHING to all buyers. It is the BOARD that must be responsible for this, NOT the homeowner. In that way, the board can be penalized for nondisclosure NOT the owner. The owner can only disclose and provide what they know and have, nothing more. But the liability and risk is placed on the owner. This is unfair because all the evidence is in the custody and control of the board of directors.

LEMON LAW: 14-DAY RETURN OF DEED-RESTRICTED PROPERTY

A lemon law should be codified and applied to ALL residential deed-restricted property purchases, giving the buyers 14 days to "return" the mess back to the owner.

NO PENALTIES AGAINST ASS. ATTORNEYS

You want to resolve disputes without lawyers? The Davis-Stirling Act needs to include the State Bar of California Disciplinary committees to start clamping down on bad ass. lawyers and disbar them. Rather than closing their discipline files, hold those lawyers accountable for their actions.

Owners too, must file complaints against those lawyers whether they hired them or not, and you must keep filing those complaints until the bar gets the message: We are not going to take it anymore. (See http://www.calbar.ca.gov)

DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS?

"Ombudsperson to ATTEMPT to resolve a dispute between an association and owner by conferring with the two parties to reach MUTUAL AGREEMENT"?
What does an "ATTEMPT" mean? Owners think that the Ombudsman WILL achieve a RESOLUTION, NOT an "ATTEMPT!"

Homeowners already have the kind of dispute resolution mentioned in AB770, for 'free,' at the Los Angeles City District Attorney's Dispute Resolution Program. Our tax dollars pay for this and there is no limit to the number of mediations an owner can request, nor is there a fee. It is FREE. (See http://www.lacity.org, telephone (213) 485-8324).

Why do owners need a statute to create yet another dispute arena that only WE must pay for?

MESSAGE TO LOWENTHAL AND OTHER LEGISLATORS

If you want to hear from the homeowners then STOP MAKING EXCUSES and ANSWER your damn telephone when constituents call and TALK TO THEM. They put you in office, the least you can do is hear what they have to say without a go-between.

Beating a dead horse. Loser Lowenthal vows to return next year with "enforcement and fines." Ha! Ha! Ha! Fancy that! Next year! He vows to return next year, to do what he could have done ten years ago but didn't have the courage to do; that is, impose penalties against the boards and management companies in the Davis-Stirling Act -- but homeowners don't hold your breath because it's a bunch of hot air.

I'm on the record demanding penalties against boards and management company personnel be written into the Davis-Stirling Act. Each year the legislature fails to do this.

Why do owners need a stinkin' "bureau" to accomplish this one-line item instilling penalties? Because Lowenthal and buddies like Mullins, typical of industry panhandlers, want to pork it up for us-the-owners who generate all the cash they feed off of. They do not want to impose penalties against boards and management companies when they can create a cash cow to fund them and their buddies at our expense. Such bureaus will not create millions in cash to pass around the various departments, they will create BILLIONS in excess revenue.

AB770 PROPAGANDA WRITTEN INTO THE BILL

Statute: "Managing a common interest development is a complex responsibility."

Response: If it is, then the legislature had/has a duty to perform, at its own expense, its own demographic, sociological studies, and pilot projects PRIOR to imposing this type of ownership responsibilities on owners. They also have a duty to impose a moratorium on building.

Statute: "Community associations are run by volunteer directors who may have little or no prior experience in managing real property, operating a nonprofit association or corporation, complying with the law governing common interest developments, and interpreting and enforcing restrictions and rules imposed by the governing documents of the common interest development."

Response:
(a) Why did the legislature make it mandatory that owners belong to the association, and make it mandatory to pay fees at-will, and make it mandatory to lose one's home for failure to pay ANY assessment? It matters not, that the legislature finally addressed nonjudicial foreclosures: it is way too little and way too late. Understand that homeowners have lost their California homes, some for as little as an alleged $150 owing the association, most in trumped up fees and charges. Which makes even more interesting to learn that the Davis-Stirling Act was amended to CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF "VOLUNTEER." These "directors" are now "volunteers-by-the-new-definition" ONLY BECAUSE the legislature wrote that stipulation into the Davis-Stirling Act. The legislature also wrote into the law that association directors MUST be UNPAID volunteers or they will not be insurable, never mind that the ongoing kickbacks and barter campaigns continue unabated. For an association board of directors, "indemnification" amounts to a "License to Lie" that is subsidized by all owners.

(b) There is NOTHING in the Davis-Stirling Act that MANDATES that the owner receive governing documents PRIOR TO SIGNING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT/BUYING, these documents are guarded closely by associations so much so, that some owners even after purchase, still cannot get a copy of them - or worse - the copy they were given is inaccurate. Still, no penalties against boards who fail to follow the law. The only person who gets sued for not turning over such governing documents, IS THE SELLER, that is, the OWNER. Not the board.

Statute: "Homeowners may not fully understand their rights and obligations under the law and the governing documents."

Response: The reason homeowners may not fully understand their rights and obligations is because (a) they have no PER SE rights and (b) the legislature keeps changing the laws. Many owners do not have access to such laws and even if they did, the legislature has now made it so damn complicated that even lawyers and judges can't interpret it.

Statute: "Mistakes and misunderstandings are inevitable and may lead to serious, costly, and divisive problems."

Response: Thanks to the legislature, ass attorneys, boards of directors, and interloper management company owners and personnel, not to mention industry saboteurs such as interlopers like CCAM, CAI, ECHO, CLAC, and their spawn, it is no wonder why this type of living environment has become SERIOUS, COSTLY AND DIVISIVE. ONLY THE OWNER HAS SOMETHING TO LOSE.

Statute: "The Common Interest Development Ombudsperson seeks to educate community association officers and homeowners as to their legal rights and obligations. Effective education can prevent or reduce the severity of problems within a common interest development."

Response: If that paragraph were not so fundamentally serious it would be laughable. How a legislator can actually put pen to paper and have the nerve to write it, boggles the mind. Therefore, I won't dignify it with a response.

Statute: "The principal remedy for a violation of common interest development law is private litigation."

Response: That is just a damn lie. It is a lie because (a) the courts have been influenced by industry to the extent they are unequivocally swayed away from rulings in favor of owners and have consistently without justification granted deference to board decisions no matter how egregious or indefensible those decisions are -- this has discouraged much litigation brought by owners against the perpetrators of fraud committed against them; AND, the legislature has taken even the right to sue away from the owners. The only effective tool, that of litigation, was stripped from us. Owners can no longer sue for construction defects and can no longer sue in general, we are met with major diversions beginning by writing signed-return-requests to the board, then waiting. Writing for Requests for Resolution, then waiting. Writing for a Meet-and-Confer, then waiting. Being diverted to mediation, then waiting. Being diverted to arbitration, then waiting AND prejudicing whatever case we might have had. ALL of this costs money to the owner. Nothing is free. Nothing tolls the statute.

Statute: "The Common Interest Development Ombudsperson provides a neutral, nonjudicial forum for resolution of common interest development disputes. Many disputes can be resolved inexpensively, informally, and amicably through ombudsperson-facilitated mediation."

Response: This bill claims to provide a neutral FORUM -- NOT a NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR. NOT a NEUTRAL MEDIATOR. JUST A ROOM, FOUR WALLS. This is anything but "neutral." The fact that the ombudsman's department exists at all tells you that it is "not" neutral. Owners will be forced to hire an attorney because the ass. will hire an ass. attorney. What is inexpensive about that? What is neutral about that?

OMBUDSMAN OFFICE IS NOTHING MORE THAN ANOTHER "CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION" - ONLY THIS TIME WE PAY FOR IT

The bill states: "The Ombudsperson may convene an advisory committee to make recommendations on matters within the Ombudsperson's jurisdiction. A member of an advisory committee shall receive per diem and expenses pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 103. In selecting the members of an advisory committee, the Ombudsperson shall ensure a fair representation of the interests involved."

Response: Pay close attention to the fact that all the industry buddies will now obtain FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT PENSIONS, HEALTH BENEFITS, VACATION TIME, ETC. Just like the inept California Law Revision Commission, these APPOINTMENTS are payback to industry parasites that will ensure the industry keeps its stranglehold on the laws by skewing data and rigging decisions against owners -- just like the court system. They will receive reimbursements, expenses, and SALARY. Any owner that believes an industry friendly ombudsman will ensure a fair representation of the interests involved, is out of their mind. If it were to be a fair representation, then the owners would pick these individuals, and frankly, there would be no need for an advisory committee.

TAKE A LOOK AT THIS CRAP YOU WILL BE FUNDING

Ombudsperson shall report annually to the Legislature, no later than October 1 of each year. The report shall include all of the following information:

(a) Annual workload and performance data, including the number of requests for assistance received, the manner in which a request was or was not resolved, and the staff time required to resolve the inquiry. For each category of data, the Ombudsperson shall provide subtotals based on the type of question or dispute involved in the request.

(b) Analysis of the most common and serious types of disputes within common interest developments, along with any recommendations for statutory reform to reduce the frequency or severity of those disputes. [this statement alone should tell owners that the legislature has not been listening to owner complaints]

(c) On or before January 1, 2009, the Ombudsperson shall submit recommendations to the Legislature on the following topics: (1) Whether the Ombudsperson should be authorized to enforce common interest development law. (2) Whether the Ombudsperson should be authorized to oversee association elections. (3) Whether the scope of application of Section 1380.230 should be narrowed or broadened. (4) Whether the Ombudsperson should provide or subsidize mediation of common interest development disputes.

Then, Civil Code section 1380.130 goes on to state, "On filing information with the Secretary of State every two years, pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1363.6, an association shall submit a Common Interest Development Ombudsperson FEE. This FEE IS IN ADDITION TO THE FEE submitted pursuant to Section 1363.6. Failure to submit the Common Interest Development Ombudsperson fee is deemed noncompliance with Section 1363.6. Costs incurred by the Secretary of State pursuant to this section shall be REIMBURSED from the Common Interest Development Ombudsperson Fund."

MANAGERS AND LAWYERS GET TO USE OMBUDSMAN FOR FREE -- BUT OWNERS HAVE TO PAY

Yup! ANYONE can use the Ombudsman.

If ANYONE can use the ombudsman, then why doesn't the legislature make EVERYONE pay through their taxes to fund the ombudsman's department?
"Under the new proposed Civil Code section 1380.300 (a): ANY interested person may request that the Office of the Common Interest Development Ombudsperson provide assistance in resolving a dispute between an association and an owner that involves the law governing common interest developments OR the governing documents of a common interest development." [what's the legal definition of an "interested" person?]

Guess what? That means if the ass. or the ass's attorney wants their fees or costs, the ass. attorney can enlist the ombudsman to assist in collecting attorney fees against you! How stupid is that?! So much for helping HOMEowners.

It also means, that vindictive management companies will be utilizing a tool that was supposedly meant for homeowners, to "target" you instead.

It also means that persons [i.e., "interested persons"] will be utilizing the ombudsman's office that YOU WERE FORCED TO PAY through your association assessments - but that they did not have to pay.

MORE HIDDEN FEES

There are hidden fees everywhere in this bill. Make no mistake, it is inevitable owners will be paying more every year. For instance, "The Ombudsperson MAY, by regulation, adopt a FEE for mediation services of not more than fifty dollars ($50) per mediation." [but no cap written into the statute]

Then another section in the same statute says "The Ombudsperson may contract with private parties to provide mediation services pursuant to this section and under the Evidence Code as it applies to mediation initiated under this section, the Ombudsperson SHALL NOT CHARGE A FEE FOR THIS service."
So which is it, $50 or free? Owners should begin budgeting an additional $100 on up for fees with no end in sight.

As each brilliant legislator wants to add their name to the notches on the Davis-Stirling Act's belt, the fees will keep rising forever.

UNDERSTAND THE PARAMETERS OF A BAD BILL

• CREATES a CID Ombudsman...(creates more problems for owners)

• REQUIRES Ombudsman to provide a website and toll-free number (this is really hard to do)

• REQUIRES association to PAY FEES for each separate interest within the CID (owners apparently don't pay enough already)

• ESTABLISHES advisory committee (just like the useless CLRC)

• REQUIRES Ombudsman to report ONCE A YEAR to the legislature with statistics (report? report WHAT? and WHY? How many damn statistics do they need, they re-publish the statistics every time they add another code to the Davis-Stirling Act, this is preposterous)

• REQUIRES Ombudsman to make RECOMMENDATIONS...AND to certify that directors have read governing documents (imagine! we are paying condo police to report to a government agency on owners READING documents --who could possibly take this bill seriously. It fails to PENALIZE RECALCITRANT BOARDS FOR THEIR BAD FAITH AND BAD ACTIONS, but it can make recommendations, what good are "recommendations" - where's the "enforcement" in THAT!)

• REQUIRES Ombudsman to provide training materials and courses AND CHARGE A FEE FOR THIS "SERVICE" (owners don't need any more pamphlets, let alone training materials provided from the same industry that bankrupts us; we've got enough problems with the real governing documents.)

• ALLOWS but does NOT REQUIRE Ombudsman to attempt to resolve a dispute between an association and owner by conferring with the two parties to reach mutual agreement. (if the owners cannot see what is wrong with this bill by this point, they are in big trouble).

THE CRUELEST HOAX YET

Everything in this bill is subject to "the limits of the available resources."

Response: What an utter, unmitigated, waste of time

The Coto de Caza Government Paradox
California is the direct democracy capital of the nation. California uses the direct initiative process, which enables voters to bypass the Legislature and have an issue of concern put directly on the ballot for voter approval or rejection. There are two...

The DaVaro Deception and the Gospel According to Mezger
For years, the DaVaro Deception has led Coto de Caza resident’s believe that public safety was the board’s number one concern, while repressing initiatives designed to prevent crime & vandalism and save lives, and promoting personal agendas.

Grup City – Coto de Caza ......Of Peter Pan, Grups and Coto d Caza
As the Coto de Caza board of directors controlled by Varo/Mezger/Hill continue to handle public safety as a Tar Baby, it is only appropriate to consider a tag line for Coto de Caza once Varo/Mezger/Hill accomplish their goal of turning Coto into a City....

Coto de Caza - New Election Laws - Call for Candidates
Dear CZ Board Members:

In July, 2006 the new state law governing HOA elections will take effect. That means that shortly thereafter, the Board should send out information concerning the mechanisms the Board intends to implement in 2007 to comply with...

NEW COTO DE CAZA BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SALVATOR OR CONSERVATOR?THE RISE AND FALL OF THE VARO/MEZGER EMPIRE
ocham, Zipperman, you just won a seat on the Coto de Caza Board of Directors, what are you going to do now? In his book Values in a Time of Upheaval, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger asserts that a fundamental orientation in the modern conception of politics and...




We do not make jokes, we simply watch the Coto de Caza Board of directors, the LA Trash and the Orange Crud Repository and report the facts