*Attempt to steal CA OHV Grant Funds*

[LYIN' KING]

Thank you very much for the update.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

Thanks, just a couple more things to consider.

History of Mr. Hathaway and his success is difficult to come by!

IMHO, his filling in the blanks may provide some enlightenment and possibly prove helpful in developing some strategy.

Sorry Steve but since Mr. Hathaway hasn't filled in the blanks I dug around a bit more. It looks like the NOHVCC history I found was incomplete . . .

http://www.4x4voice.com/Notebook/ohm...l-decision.pdf

According to the document above, as a result of later appeal the decision in favor of OHV reimbursement presented in the NOHVCC .pdf link I originally posted was reversed. Note the decision above is an unpublished piece out of the 2nd Appellate Court.

It’s a valid decision but since it was unpublished, unfortunately it can't be used to assist other cases. The legal stuff that supported overturning the original decision did come from published cases and shows issues that have to be addressed in order to win a lawsuit over state transfers of funding from the OHV Trust Fund.

It appears that the key legal turning point involved the "separation of powers" doctrine that says the Court cannot force the legislature to fund a program that is not mandated by constitution or initiative from the people.

The way I read this decision, the OHV Program is a legislative mandate but lacks constitution or initiative protection though I am no expert.

If that's correct then the original legal case brought by Mr. Hathaway could have been won, but the court couldn’t have forced the legislature to restore the funding due to that separation of powers doctrine.

So, as it turns out the loan to the Department of Fish and Game is the only one ever repaid after former Deputy Director Daphne Greene pursued the issue.

I know she wasn’t your favorite cup of tea but she did manage to pull off a one hit wonder.

Bob

[aphantomduck]

Bob...

The amounts of the "take" from this Fund have been reduced by the veto power of the Gov recently.

Nonetheless, there was a take. What I'm not sure about is how the take happened with the Gov's veto message. I'm not sure until taking a look at the documents if the take was pre or post transfer of gasoline tax monies.

The difference in the look that the OHVDC is taking is the contention that funds in the Transportation Fund are protected via the Constitution. It appears that the legislature - last year - took the money pre transfer to the OHV Fund.

The difference in the case you have dug up some great documents on, is that the Counts lawsuit had to do with monies taken post Transportation Fund transfer.

Thanks for finding this document and I'll have to keep a copy for future reference.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by aphantomduck

Bob...

The amounts of the "take" from this Fund have been reduced by the veto power of the Gov recently.

Nonetheless, there was a take. What I'm not sure about is how the take happened with the Gov's veto message. I'm not sure until taking a look at the documents if the take was pre or post transfer of gasoline tax monies.

The difference in the look that the OHVDC is taking is the contention that funds in the Transportation Fund are protected via the Constitution. It appears that the legislature - last year - took the money pre transfer to the OHV Fund.

The difference in the case you have dug up some great documents on, is that the Counts lawsuit had to do with monies taken post Transportation Fund transfer.

Thanks for finding this document and I'll have to keep a copy for future reference.

Presented for your edification since you had first hand recall of the initial history, glad you found some value in both finds! Thank you for your insight as it pertains to the two documents and modern era issues we now face!!

Bob

[mannysouza]

A reply I received today, IMO, just a good stroking.

"
Dear Mr. Souza:

*

Thank you for your correspondence expressing your concerns about the proposed funding reductions to the Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Program in the 2012-13 State Budget.**
*
This year, Governor Brown’s initial 2012-13 State Budget and May Revision proposed to address an estimated $15.7 billion deficit by continuing to reduce funding for health, social service, and child care programs.*The cornerstone of the Governor’s budget proposal was that this November voters will approve a temporary increase in income and sales taxes to fund K-12 education, higher education and other statewide programs.*
*
The 2012-13 State Budget passed by the Legislature in June provides $16.5 billion in solutions to bridge the $15.7 billion budget gap and provide a $788 million reserve for the state, as well as eliminates the structural deficit over the next three years.
*
With regard to the OHV Program, the budget specifies that $21 million be used from the Motor Vehicle Fuel Account to fund the operation, maintenance, and capital projects in parks and the OHV Program.*The budget also includes a reduction of $10 million to the OHV Local Assistance Program.
*
As proposed by Governor Brown, the 2012-13 Budget is balanced on the enactment of the November initiative.*If the voters do not pass the Governor’s tax initiative, K-12 education, higher education, and Cal-Fire fire suppression will see their funding significantly reduced.***
*
Please know that we worked hard to prevent massive job losses that would threaten California’s economic recovery and are continuing to advance the state’s economic recovery through the elimination of the state’s structural budget deficit.*Additionally, it was important that no one segment of society was unfairly burdened with making sacrifices in order to balance the 2012-13 Budget.*I truly appreciate your thoughtful comments.*
*
Again, thank you for contacting me regarding the 2012-13 State Budget.*I look forward to hearing from you in the future regarding other issues and invite you to visit my website at: http://asmdc.org/members/a27/.**
*
Sincerely,
*
WILLIAM W. MONNING
Assemblymember, 27th District"



* * * *

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by aphantomduck

Bob...

The amounts of the "take" from this Fund have been reduced by the veto power of the Gov recently.

Nonetheless, there was a take. What I'm not sure about is how the take happened with the Gov's veto message. I'm not sure until taking a look at the documents if the take was pre or post transfer of gasoline tax monies.

The difference in the look that the OHVDC is taking is the contention that funds in the Transportation Fund are protected via the Constitution. It appears that the legislature - last year - took the money pre transfer to the OHV Fund.

The difference in the case you have dug up some great documents on, is that the Counts lawsuit had to do with monies taken post Transportation Fund transfer.

Thanks for finding this document and I'll have to keep a copy for future reference.

Steve,

Any idea whatever happened to these folks and the issue still highlighted on their home page? Was the matter deemed not feasible to pursue having been scrutinized by the firm hired?

[UglyJeepThing]

Hi Bob,

Still here, still working on it. When it comes to legal issues, oftentimes it's wisest to stay quiet until a suit is filed. Give me a call if you would like.

Amy

[LYIN' KING]

I had imagined it was still an issue of future concern even though we were graciously allowed to keep a portion of our funding in the last budget cycle.

Perhaps with new blood in Parks and OHMVR division the landscape has changed in a positive manner.

Thank you for the update!

[thewolf916]

hello Amy,

Any feel for the new director of Parks? or what's going to happen with the deputy director for the division?

[OrangeCrash]

Originally Posted by thewolf916

hello Amy,

Any feel for the new director of Parks? or what's going to happen with the deputy director for the division?

Nagging concern yes along with the growing number of vacancies on the Commission, which will be four in January for a grand total of five vacant appointments for the California State OHV program.

[thewolf916]

Originally Posted by OrangeCrash

Nagging concern yes along with the growing number of vacancies on the Commission, which will be four in January for a grand total of five vacant appointments for the California State OHV program.

if there are five vacancies - there will be no quorum.

[OrangeCrash]

Originally Posted by thewolf916

if there are five vacancies - there will be no quorum.

Five total for the program as a whole, four on the Commission and one for Division being the Deputy Director seat, Commission will still have a quorum 5 of 9 providing all show up.

[thewolf916]

Originally Posted by OrangeCrash

Five total for the program as a whole, four on the Commission and one for Division being the Deputy Director seat, Commission will still have a quorum 5 of 9 providing all show up.

oh, i thought you were talking about the OHV Commission.....

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

Steve,

Any idea whatever happened to these folks and the issue still highlighted on their home page? Was the matter deemed not feasible to pursue having been scrutinized by the firm hired?

Bob...

I've been asking much the same thing on Facebook. There was, back in October, a response to my similar question and this is what was told to me on 10/05/2012:

Yes it is a good time and thank you ALL for your patience. We are crafting a press release as I type this response and will have it out soon. Thank you all again!!!

This must be a heck of a good press release as its taken over 2 months (and counting) to get this release out.

I also don't see one of the "advisors" on the membership list in the new site as I did in the first site.

I'm hearing there is strife in the OHVDC present/past leadership.

[OrangeCrash]

[QUOTE=thewolf916;15083702]hello Amy,

Any feel for the new director of Parks? or what's going to happen with the deputy director for the division?

Dear Tom,

Since late last year, I've told just about everyone that Governor Jerry Brown hasn't done enough on the state parks issue. As of today, I'm singing a new tune.

Last week, Governor Brown appointed a new director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation to lead the troubled and underfunded system of 279 parks out of its darkest era.

On Friday, I had a chance to meet the new director over lunch. My first impression: Governor Brown, Resources Secretary John Laird, and the governor's appointments staff all have earned an A for finding and appointing the new director.

This guy appears to have what it will take.

His name is Tony Jackson. For 36 years, he was a member of the U.S. Marine Corps, rising to the rank of two-star major general. So why, I initially wondered, would the governor appoint a military guy to run parks? Seemed like an odd fit to me.

Now, after learning more about Jackson, it doesn't seem an odd fit at all.

He has thrived in a complex organization embedded with protocol and politics. He has had to inspire people to do better, and has had to lead people to achieve a common vision.

These are all strong pluses. But will he appreciate the important ecological resources in the park system's 1.4 million acres?

In one of his last jobs with the Marines, he oversaw the Marine bases in the western U.S. That meant overseeing management of thousands of acres of wild lands that provide habitat to dozens of threatened and endangered species. Camp Pendleton, in Northern San Diego County, alone boasts 125,000 acres and at least 17 endangered species.

He has had to balance the need for preserving the environment with competing demands at the bases he oversaw. He earned high marks for an important role he took in stopping the construction of a toll road that would have run through San Onofre State Beach and Camp Pendleton and some especially sensitive habitat.

He appears to have the green heart needed. His wife is a native plant aficionado and lover of the outdoors and the state's natural heritage. She has had a huge influence on his thinking, he said.

Some are already talking to Jackson about the opportunity he has to re-envision the park system. My own take is that the park system doesn't so much need re-envisioning as it needs a good leader who can help inspire employees. It needs someone who can restore public faith and excite all of us about the value of our state parks. It needs someone who has the governor's ear and respect.

I asked Jackson what I should be telling Sierra Club members about him. He said, laughing, that I should tell everyone that he's a nice guy. I can say with a straight face that he is that. But I also think he may be exactly the right man at the right time for state parks.





Sincerely,



Kathryn Phillips, Director
Sierra Club California

Sierra Club California is the Sacramento-based legislative and regulatory advocacy arm of the 13 California chapters of the Sierra Club.

Answer to your first question it appears the Sierra Club just loves him, judging by a letter circulated by an OHV activist that managed to get on their mailing list.

Found it on South Bay Riders.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by aphantomduck

Bob...

I've been asking much the same thing on Facebook. There was, back in October, a response to my similar question and this is what was told to me on 10/05/2012:



This must be a heck of a good press release as its taken over 2 months (and counting) to get this release out.

I also don't see one of the "advisors" on the membership list in the new site as I did in the first site.

I'm hearing there is strife in the OHVDC present/past leadership.

Interesting if true, thanks for the input.

One could speculate that "assessing the legal merits of the legal theory advanced by themselves to a competent legal team" returned a document that simply reads . . . "the cause was not worthwhile", "the effort would be unsuccessful".

[OrangeCrash]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

Interesting if true, thanks for the input.

One could speculate that "assessing the legal merits of the legal theory advanced by themselves to a competent legal team" returned a document that simply reads . . . "the cause was not worthwhile", "the effort would be unsuccessful".

Think it's more of a matter of finding a Judge with enough spine to do the right thing, under threat of getting hit with targeted budget cuts as retaliation or getting their office moved into the bathroom.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by OrangeCrash

Think it's more of a matter of finding a Judgment with enough spine to do the right thing, under threat of getting hit with targeted budget cuts as retaliation or getting their office moved into the bathroom.

Tom,

I don't understand your reply in light of the question . . .

Was merit found to file suit over the "take"?

[OrangeCrash]

Went back and fixed a typo go try again, but not too hard.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by OrangeCrash

Went back and fixed a typo go try again, but not too hard.

That makes more sense, the thoughts assume merit. Were it fact, would saying same be giving away the whole case?

While there may be legal angles that lend various cases merit, many other factors often come into play. They all need to line up creating a high percentage of success and return on investment before any effort is launched.

Risk and return ratio evaluation after establishing merit shouldn't require much time in a case like this IMHO.