Please find below an excerpt from a recent email from Mr. Irv Mermelstein about impending FDDP litigation. This excerpt address whether or not CAC members could be/will be defendants. Although Mr. Mermelstein requested a post of his entire email, the below portion is most pertinent to the CAC process.
“Neither I nor
anyone connected with a2underwater in any way or with the impending FDDP
litigation has ever suggested that a CAC member would be a defendant in any
action by any of the many FDDP plaintiffs-in-waiting. We would appreciate that
being cleared up with the CAC.”
Comments
Frank Burdick on 24 Jan, 2014:
I was CC’d on the email in question. This is the entire email sent early
today to Robert, Charlie, City Staff, Council members, and many others.
Dear Robert,
There has been a lot of attention paid at the CAC lately to concerns of CAC
members about suits or threats of suits against CAC members. There have
been comments in public at CAC meetings suggesting that threats had been
made; emails from the City Attorney’s Office about the likelihood of suits
against them, coupled with offers of indemnity; suggestions on comment
threads, etc.
Neither I nor anyone connected with a2underwater in any way or with the
impending FDDP litigation has ever suggested that a CAC member would be a
defendant in any action by any of the many FDDP plaintiffs-in-waiting. We
would appreciate that being cleared up with the CAC, the Chronicle, which
reported on one CAC member in particular who claimed someone had threatened
him. It wasn’t anyone on my end.
What I have said since the kickoff meeting on the FDDP Effectiveness
Study on April 23 last year (including to some of your OHM personnel at the
meeting) was that participants in the study—including engineers, other
contractor personnel, CAC members and Mr. Fleetham—could find themselves
as witnesses in legal actions over the FDDP. I don’t think this has been
explained at all by the City Attorney’s Office, nor has the possibility
that this might involve more than one proceeding of various kinds and
expense that was not mentioned as within the scope of any indemnity. I had
a long conversation about this problem with one member of the Mallet’s
Creek CAC after the kickoff for that study.
We have understood this witness problem from early on because
irregularities in the wet weather evaluation studies were apparent even
before the kickoff meeting of the FDDP Effectiveness Study because of the
content of the OHM Proposal, including the discussion of Mr. Fleetham’s
facilitation methods.
There were also irregularities in the Mallets Creek Study that emerged from
the circumstances surrounding the botched Public Hearing on the Sewer
District SRF. That SRF includes $8 million worth of retention facilities
conveniently sized on the assumption that completion of FDDs in the Target
Areas would be resumed. So the objectives of various studies depend on the
continuation of FDDs. In any event, your own org chart shows that the three
studies are basically one study, with FDDs as the common thread.
A posting at Base Camp would be apprciated, with a copy of the post to me.
I’d like to have the opportunity to ensure that the disclosure to the CAC
that no threats have been made is not spun inappropriately for the CAC’s
benefit.
Irvin Mermelstein