Fact checking Los Osos board member’s Facebook comments

Director Jon Erik Storm


In a 4-1 vote with Director Chuck Cesena dissenting, the Los Osos Community Services District voted on Thursday evening to increase the pay of its general manager by 23 percent. An increase in pay one district board member argued on Facebook was not a raise.

On Wednesday, Director Jon Erik Storm wrote that an article on Cal Coast Times informing the public of the boards plan to increase district Manger Renee Osborne’s pay from $78,024 to $98,000 a year less than three months after a 65 percent water rate increase went into effect was misleading.

“Something I’ll never understand about our local politics is what the purpose of publishing misleading blog entires [sic] just to stir people up is,” Storm wrote on Facebook. “This morning, I see the LOCSD has been said to be giving it’s GM a 23% raise. Except that’s not correct. We are bringing Renee on for more time at the same rate.”

In its headline, the Cal Coast Times article said the board was considering a “23 percent pay increase.” The article went of to discuss the increase in hours.

“District staff is recommending the increase in pay to provide compensation for moving from a part-time manager position to a full-time position, according to the staff report,” the Cal Coast Times article said. “If the new contract is approved, Osborne’s salary will increase from $6,502 a month to $8,010 a month.”

In his Facebook post, Storm suggests that the manager’s salary is going up to cover five extra hours a week at $20 an hour.

However, moving from 35 to 40 hours a week would be a 12.5 percent increase in hours, while Osborne is receiving a 23 percent increase in pay.

In addition, a person paid $20 an hour for 40 hours a week would make $3,200 a month. At $8,010 a month, Osborne’s salary breaks down to $50.06 an hour

Osborne also questions the reason to publish an article informing the public of the board’s plan to increase Osborne’s salary less than a year after she was hired.

“Seriously. What’s the purpose? I don’t get it,” Storm wrote on Facebook. “Election after election, the voters have made it clear that they support what we’re doing and want our basin protected and they want value. Even our rate hikes have had vanishingly low numbers against them. Are we all going to be proved wrong one day? Heh.

“It gets funnier every time, so pardon me if I have a wry smile during our meetings.”

Please, be respectful of others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, and other uncivil comments will be removed. The comments posted represent the opinion of the writer and do not represent the views or policies of the website.

5 Comments about “Fact checking Los Osos board member’s Facebook comments”

  1. perk o late says:

    Mr Storm is obviously relying heavily on staff reports! This crap for math is how they always get away with recommending approval and board members eat this stuff up like it’s the gospel.

  2. Rose Robertson says:

    This simply an”ethics issue” situation and Mr. Storm is quickly explaining away any hint of same.

    Is it not unethical to bring on more debt to a community where some are struggling to pay their water & sewer bills, plus
    their highest tax bill in 30 years, for no good reason? No explanation was given as to why the manager needs to work
    longer hours to manage a water company.

    Was this yet another manager threatening to leave & thus threaten the slim existance of our defunct CSD ?

    Where is the money comming from to pay her? Could it be from hijacking the Pool Fund 900 ($300.000 or so)?
    Mr Storm has just recently indicated in a Tribune article this fund is “unrestricted? according to their own legal counsel, even thouugh it has been deemed “restricted by our entire LOCSD boards since it was passed on from our County. Perhaps the community should get an outside opinion.

    Is it not unethical to use funds gathered from a community district & proposed to be used for a specified pool building purpose, not a general fund item to keep the doors open, or help fund dog park etc.

    It.s a slippery slope when we fail to recognise a gradual erosion of ethical standards.

  3. insidelookingout says:

    Let me see, 5 hrs. a week at $20 an hour would be $100 a week.
    52 weeks at $100 a week would be $5200.
    Proposed pay $98,000 less current pay of $78,024 ia a difference of $19,976.
    Now here we go, $19, 976 is more than $5200 by $14,776.

    What happened? Mr, Storm we may not be the smartest but we are not this stupid. Have you thought about seeking other employment to meet your skills?

    1. insidelookingout says:

      Poor Mr. Storm. There are 40 hrs. of work yime in a week. There are 52 weeks in a year. Now that equates simply to 52 X’s 40 = 2080 work hrs. in a week. Mr. Storm claims this person is being paid $20 an hour. So 2080 hrs. X’s $20 = $41,600. Somebody has some explaining to do.

  4. Slovinian Sam says:

    This guys math skills puts him in the buffoon category. Glad to see that he oversees the budget. WHAT A JOKE !!!

Comments are closed.