OSWPCA: Sunshine / WPCA practice: lies and intentional deceptions - 21Mar2014

Text facsimile

---------------------------> Joel R. Anderson

                             13 George Drive
                             Old Saybrook CT 06475-2636
                             860 388-9858
                             oswpca.com / govtwork.org
                             21 March 2014
WPCA Chairman Elsa Payne
Old Saybrook Town Hall
302 Main St
Old Saybrook CT 06475-2369

Dear Chairman Payne:

Re WPCA practice: lies and intentional deceptions (the WPCA's "Mission Accomplished" moment)
Ms. Lewis noted that funds expended under Legal Counsel included expenditures regarding appeals that were not CWF reimbursable at the time. Now that the appeal has decided in favor of the WPCA, the legal costs can be submitted for CWF reimbursement.
-- WPCA Regular Meeting Minutes - March 10, 2014
Undoubtedly the language in the Minutes is intended to deceive the person reading WPCA 10Mar14 "Mission Accomplished" minutes into believing that they can't prevail upon appeal, that an appeal is useless, and that they should just lie there quietly and let the WPCA rape their pocketbook.

CRAHD, not WPCA, has decisions rendered in favor or not. WPCA is not a party to the appeal. WPCA has no authority over septic systems.

Our appeal is far from decided, as the Shipman & Goodwin LLP lawyer for CRAHD (that you are paying) should have told you.

The Lie:

November 29, 2010, Dear Mr. Anderson, "In response to your email dated November 23, 2010 the WPCA would like to correct your allegation that the Town is "transferring costs of a voter-approved project onto a subset of its citizens."

What part of my allegation is incorrect? The WPCA is transferring the cost of the 11Aug09 referendum-approved project onto a subset of its citizens, property owners within the WWMD.

1) Is the WPCA alleging that there wasn't voter approval for the cost of design and construction of the WWMD on 11Aug09?

2) Is the WPCA alleging that the WPCA hasn't moved the voter-approved cost onto a subset of its citizens, WWMD owners?

3) Is the WPCA alleging that plain language of Question 2 of the 11Aug09 is misunderstood by every WWMD property owner?

4) Is the WPCA alleging that Question 2 is no longer applicable to Question 1 of the same referendum?

WPCA Benefit Assessments are illegal under the plain language of Question 2. If you have a legal opinion indicating otherwise, I would like to have it.

The bafflegab coming out of the WPCA is an impediment to resolving the important issue of WHO PAYS for the septic system upgrades the WPCA is currently demanding.
                             Very truly yours,

                             Joel R. Anderson

e: WPCA Regular Meeting Minutes 10Mar14, pages 1, 2
    Anderson 23Nov10 email + snailmail to BdOfSelectmen
    WPCA 29Nov10 to Anderson correcting 23Nov allegation
    Notice of Oral Argument, DPH, 05Mar14

N.B: a copy of this letter is posted to oswpca.com.
  Electronic and paper copies have been distributed
  to interested parties.