BCVWD Ratepayers Paying For Staff Son's College
Posted by: Dave Everett | 12/16/2007 4:44 PM
What if this guy flunks out? Why would taxpayers want to put this guy through school and not other engineers? Did other engineering students have a chance to apply?
The whole thing smells of nepotism and using ones public office for personal gain (or your family's gain in this case.) I encourage folks supportive of BCVWD's position to explain how this is a good deal for taxpayers.
I'm not sure his "exceptional work ethic" as judged by his dad's buddies is convincing enough for me.
Beaumont-Cherry Valley ratepayers object to water district bankrolling college student
10:00 PM PST on Friday, December 14, 2007By MICHAEL PERRAULT
The Press-EnterpriseAn Inland water district has come under fire for paying $133,850 to send a longtime employee's son to college in exchange for his promise to become the agency's engineer.
Standing-room-only crowds of 40 to 50 people have been squeezing into Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District's meetings in recent months. In often-heated exchanges, some of the district's nearly 13,000 customers in Beaumont and Cherry Valley have questioned why it is paying for employee to earn a bachelor's degree in engineering.
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_college15.33dd614.html


This is not the only problem ratepayers are protesting with this water co. They havent had an audit since 2003 . The books are a real mess . There were credits discovered in the debits columns and vice-versa to the extent of very large amounts . When the pres. stella parks and vice-pres. blair ball of the water board , who were also on the finance committee discovered many descrepancies in the books and questioned them , the other 3 board members who do not think for themselves as board members should , but in fact just do what the general manager wants , promptly voted them out of the presidency and the vice presidency and removed them from the finance committee ... this smells very much like there are things that the general manager doesnt want discovered .. there are many other problems going on here . Employees are residing in 4 houses owned by the district that the ratepayers are paying everything for . The state ponds project which was built at a huge expense has been totally mismanaged and not even used as the ground is clay and the water doesnt sink . this expense of maintaining something that is not in use is another problem for ratepayers . Proposition B that was defeated by the voters recently and was campaigned against by the pass water agency , was a pile of propaganda presented to voters who along with the pass water agency saw thru the lies . This was another $600k expense the voters paid for . Last , i would remind anyone who is reading this to go back to the press enterprize archives and look up the problems that the district manager chuck butcher had to face in the late 90's . He hasnt learned from his previous legal problems one bit .
Or add the two extra holidays the Board voted in at the last meeting on Mr. Butcher's request. He told the Board that this was not an MOU or labor issue, although page 11 of the BCVWD 2006-2008 MOU shows 11 paid holidays, including Christmas and New Years Day. Christmas Eve and New year's Day are not negotiated holidays. The employee must also work the business days before and after the paid holidays to receive the benefit. Mr. Butcher told the Board me, a rate payer, was wrong about the MOU. So this year, the employees of the BCVWD have 13 paid holidays, adding at least $11000 plus to the budget and making Mr. Butcher himself in the neighborhood of $1200 ($600 plus a day). Nice bonus.
This benefit and the tuition reimbursement benefit discussed in the article now put the BCVWD benefits ahead of local firefighters, police officers, school teachers, the military, and anyone else you can find serving the public with public funds.