THE RESPONSE NO CITY DEPARTMENT HEAD COULD EVER WRITE,
BUT JUST MIGHT WANT TO

Dear Ms. Weling:

 Thanks so much for your pedantic, condescending, lecturing screed.  It just so happens I was once a Junior High School Vice-Principal, my duties included establishing disciplinary procedures and penalties for the students, and then monitoring compliance.  And virtually every day I dealt with students who had violated the rules.

You’ve taken me right back to those days of righteous indignation from those adolescents caught red-handed doing something wrong, loudly pointing fingers at all the others whose fault it was.  These were also days that I was many years younger, a bit thinner and in generally better shape than I am now, and so I offer my thanks for the nostalgic look back.

But lets look forward, and see if we can’t address your many, many, MANY complaints.

I trust that you can understand that, while the specific “Water Conservation” ordinance you reference is indeed yet-to-be-implemented, the city’s “Water Waster Rules” were in force before the WC ordinance was crafted, they are in effect now, and except in any case where the ordinance supersedes them, they will remain in effect once the WC ordinance has been approved.

In short, you are wrong when you say the citations are the enforcement of a rule that doesn’t go into effect for another month.  (Odd that, given a widely acknowledged state of emergency with regard to water supplies throughout Southern California you’d be adamantly insisting it is your right to waste water.  Some might see that as a belligerent, unproductive assertion of the right to disregard common sense and the interests of everyone else in order to do whatever the hell you want, no matter how much harm it does.  But, fortunately, since the law actually DOES apply and is in effect right now, you cannot claim that selfish right in these instances.)

In any case, watering during the day was, is and remains an egregious form of wasting water. Frankly, we’d thought it had been well-established as an irrefutable fact that, when watering during daylight hours, most of the water coming into contact with vegetation and the soil is in fact evaporated into the atmosphere within a very short time, and it provides no benefit to the vegetation.

This is a point our agency, the Metropolitan Water District, City Hall, the schools and virtually every other responsible outlet I can think of has tried to communicate to the general public for months, if not years. 

You personally have received information about this included in your utility bills.  Moreover, it’s my understanding you routinely view city council meetings, and a number of other events on the city’s cable TV channel, and the message has been discussed and repeated innumerable times in those forums. 

Finally on this, the point has been made countless times in the local newspaper, in the Los Angeles Times and the Daily News, and has even been the subject of MANY reports from every television news channel I can ever remember watching.

But perhaps you simply haven’t been exposed to the mass media outlets.  So that’s why I again refer you to the notices that HAVE appeared in your utility bills, and in the discussions and presentations at city meetings you have attended and/or watched.

Glendale prohibits water wasting, and daytime watering is one form of that which we have prohibited.  Be advised, the means by which one waters does not alter that, because whether the water comes out of a sprinkler head, or the sprinkler attached directly to a hose does not change the properties of the sun, the water, or the evaporative process. 

It seems to us in City Hall and the various city offices that even most children in the city seem to understand this basic, simple principle with regard to day-time watering, and it puzzles us that some adults appear to be flummoxed by it.  For those who do seem to require additional guidance, we provide the violation notices you’ve received.  (Though not everyone requires receiving two before they get the point.)

Indeed, should you choose to run a hose up your husband’s ass, with water spewing from his mouth and onto the vegetation in your yard, this, too, if done during daylight hours, would be an activity that constitutes water wasting. 

Be advised, other municipal ordinances may also apply to this latter example, and could potentially make the described activity illegal at ANY hour.  But there are so many possible variables that I suggest you first check with permit services, the fire department and the police department for information before employing your husband as a “water feature.”  There may also be homeowner association rules specific to your home that apply.  And if there aren’t now, if you do belong to an HOA that imposes conditions of membership, I expect there would some developed very quickly.

I very much appreciate your fascinating information as to how Dana Point administers rules in that city.  If you could direct me to that resolution or ordinance approved by the city council of Glendale that dictates this city will conduct its business in a manner consistent with the rules of Dana Point, you could bring about some sweeping changes in this city.

Until then, of course, I always appreciate the inherent helpfulness of learning how others do it.  I’d be fascinated to learn how Long Beach, CA., Cheyenne, WY., Taos, N.M., Akron, OH., Wilkes Barre, PA. and Burlington, VT. apply their city ordinances, and I’ll look forward to hearing back from you about all of those.  I’ll never say we can’t learn from others!

Until then, of course, we’ll have to enforce Glendale’s rules according to the policies and procedures as they’ve been debated, established and approved here in Glendale.  While one of the ways you’ve found to waste water and apparently insist on continuing may be permitted in Dana Point, it is not permitted in Glendale.

Yes, I am aware that the violation notices cite a code chapter that is very long.  I’d ask you to understand that these notices are used for a variety of violations.  The city has not created a different violation notice for every conceivable violation of each section.  Moreover, as you are well aware, code sections can change, and if the city were to have to dispose of thousands of printed violation notices each time, I suspect some might opine that is a foolish waste of money and resources.

Now, if your suggestion were that those completing the notices include somewhere on the notice a note as to the specific code section being cited, I might agree regardless of whether you capitalized the suggestion, or not.  That is an idea worth considering, and I honestly can’t think of a reason off the top of my head NOT to do it.

So, while it was not your suggestion, I have been able to extrapolate SOMETHING of use from your rant. In City Hall, we consider that a GOOD DAY!

Of course, in your case, a complete reading of the entire chapter may be helpful, so that you can determine whether any of your other favorite means of wasting water are in fact specifically illegal.  Perhaps some of the ways you insist on wasting the dramatically dwindling resource remain untouched by the municipal code.

You’ve noted that, between the first notice of violation and the second, a period of approximately one month, the form for the notices had not changed.  You are absolutely right.  You must have been very good at those “Can You Find The Differences?” puzzles when you were a kid.  In this case, there were zero differences between the citation issued in July, and the one issued in August.  Good job!

Indeed, the name of my predecessor DOES still appear on the violations as the department head.  I again confess, we did not dispose of every notice when the change in personnel became official.  It’s our contention that this is not a substantive change warranting the destruction of thousands of citations that were printed.  After all, you seem to have found me despite the “misleading” information.

On the other hand, if you know of a means whereby we can order forms produced at the best possible price for the taxpayer’s dollar, but so that it will not be necessary to dispose of any if/when non-substantive information provided therein changes, we will welcome that assistance.  In fact, one member of my department has already suggested we not include ANY individual’s name on the next batch, to avoid a repeat of the horror with which you’ve had to contend.

Unfortunately, if we made such a change, we’ve been advised that there are those city critics who could be expected to howl that THAT would be evidence of an effort by city officials to escape accountability to the citizens.  You know, a classic “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario for city employees, staff and even the council.  Of course, I’m sure YOU aren’t among those who engage in such tactics, and surely you donâ’t know anyone else who does.  But be assured, they are out there.

Next, let me review your list of questions to make sure I’ve addressed each one, and if I haven’t, to do so now.


1.  Is it your department’s procedure to issue citations before a code enforcement date?

As explained above, no.  And this is not what happened.  You were cited, twice, for violating a code that IS and HAS been in effect.  And while it seems not to trouble you at all, your activity would constitute wasting water even if city ordinance did not prohibit it.

 2.  Is it your department’s procedure to use and continue to use outdated materials?

When the data cited as “out of date” is not substantive to the matter at hand, ABSOLUTELY - YES, THIS IS OUR PRACTICE.  While you may be troubled that we continue to use forms that include the name of a staffer who is no longer with the city, something I’m sure DANA POINT would never do, there are taxpayers in Glendale who appreciate the fact that we did not waste money by destroying existing forms, and spend a lot of money to reprint those forms, simply to add my name.

Somebody disagrees with you.  Deal with it.

3.  Is it your department‒s procedure to issue citations for issues that have not been addressed by the city council and no notification given to residents?

Technically, this is actually a rephrasing of # 1, but adds more false assertions.  It IS true the City Manager has not gone door-to-door and held hands while engaged in conversation with each resident to outline every facet of water wasting that is prohibited in Glendale.  But more than ample information HAS been provided to every utility customer.

 4.  How many “water police” do you have on staff?   What is their training?

Why, how many of them will it take and what training will it require to get you to follow the rules?  OK, ju-u-u-ust kidding.

Several employees of the department are permitted and encouraged to cite water wasters when, during the day-to-day performance of their duties, they personally witness such activities.  There are only two employees who are on occasion specifically assigned to “patrol” areas specifically looking for violations of the municipal code with regard to water wasting.

The training consists of being informed as to the most common forms of water wasting prohibited by municipal ordinance, and how to deal with those who are found engaging in those activities.

The priority is always to highlight education and information.  But the employees are also trained to understand that those who continue to disregard the rules must be the subject of citations.

Now, given all your lecturing me about how to run my department, and our apparent mutual agreement that training and experience are important, how about telling me your training and experience as the General Manager of a municipal utility so that I can assess the worth of your input?

5.  How is the city geographically divided up for monitoring by your department?

This changes from time to time.  After a period of enforcement specific to residential areas, employees might be then shifted to check commercial areas looking for business compliance with the water conservation ordinances, or the lack thereof.   In addition, employees may be directed to specific addresses in response to reports of violations.

Indeed, there ARE Glendale residents who take the shortage of water seriously, and when they see a neighbor, or a nearby business, or even a city property that appears to be violating the law and wasting water, they call us with the information and we check out their reports.

Hey, our web site - which you seem to have had trouble finding - even includes a form for filing such reports, and information on all the specifics of our rules about wasting water.  Check it out some time:

http://www.glendalewaterandpower.com/report_water_waste_anonymously.aspx

6.  Is your staff authorized to make their own decisions and interpretations on issues that the City Council has not addressed? 

EVERY freakin’ day, lady. Of course!  Just how clueless ARE you?  Perhaps you don’t understand the form of government adopted by the city of Glendale through its Charter and Municipal Code. But in our “City Manager” form of government, it is the role of the city council to discuss and approve policies for the city, and for the City Manager and his staff (basically all city employees) to implement those policies on a day-to-day basis.  (There are also various commissions and similar panels that can offer input along the way.)

The fact is, every day city workers must make judgment calls.  Indeed, almost every time that I can think of when city council members get involved in the day-to-day running of the city, inserting themselves into situations many call “micro-managing,” disaster has ensued!  Perhaps you don’t know this, but some candidates actually run for council on platforms that include a pledge NOT to micro-manage, and others have to run reelection campaigns filled with (largely untrue) denials that they have engaged in micro-managing.

Last of all, let me address points in your letter enumerated separately AFTER your list of questions, items falling under the heading of “Other Concerns.”

 1.  Your name is not listed on the Webb Site for the city.  It continues to list Ignacio Troncoso.  I believe Ignacio has been gone about a year---  time to update.

This is embarrassing and true in some places on the city’s web site.  Sure, I am listed - as is my e-mail address - on the city’s "EXECUTIVE STAFF" contact sheet, and several other places throughout the site.  But there DO exist SOME places where my predecessor’s name remains.  Be assured, if I or my department had any control over the content of that site, that would have been changed long ago.  Perhaps you’ll join me in urging the city’s IT and public information offices to address this and several similar shortcomings on the city’s web site.

On the other hand, if you go to the GWP site, what anyone would find if they entered “Glendale Water and Power” into a search engine like Google, Yahoo, etc., you’ll find I am listed, including a picture, bio, contact information and so forth.

Here’s a link for you:

http://www.glendalewaterandpower.com/about/gwp_staff.aspx

2.   Recently I have noticed an increase in your department vehicles on East Mountain Street.  AS YOU SHOULD BE AWARE, East Mountain Street is a Residential street and when the Rossmoyne Homeowners Association went through an extensive traffic calming effort, the city agreed that city vehicles were to use commercial streets and not lumber through our neighborhood as a “quick route/cut through.”  This decision was made for QUALITY OF LIFE AND SAFETY REASONS. 

You fail to note, however, that city vehicles ARE entitled to use city streets, EVEN yours, when the duties of the vehicle’s occupants take them into those areas.  THAT is what you have been “observing.”  We note and have adhered to the city policy that discourages city vehicles from using “your” streets as a “quick route/cut through.”

Perhaps your complaint is that my department has been too attentive to repairs and maintenance required in your area.  If that’s the case, please provide some specifics.

Perhaps at some point in the future the HOA will accomplish an ordinance that allows only a certain number of vehicles on the public streets in your area, streets paid for and maintained by all Glendale taxpayers that pass in front of your homes. I suppose not an altogether outlandish possibility in Glendale.  Perhaps the HOA will somehow accomplish a gate house that bars everyone but residents, and still manages to have all taxpayers continue to maintain your neighborhood’s streets and sidewalks.  And at that time you can be assured we WILL respect that ordinance (at least until a court tosses it out).

Until then, however, when the completion of our duties requires it, which occasionally includes looking for reported water-wasters, vehicles from my department will continue to be seen on your streets.

3.    Due to the concerns listed above I have sent copies of this email to the City Council and City Attorney.

Yeah, I’m sure they’ll be just excited to check their mail as I’ve been.

4.    There appears to be an element of harassment in the citations issued, as neither one is valid.

Odd, because from our perspective, it appears there’s someone who seems to believe the rules don’t apply to them, and that CERTAIN neighborhoods and CERTAIN people should be left alone when it comes to enforcement of rules against wasting water.

I wish to thank you in advance for your quality response to my concerns.  Carole Weling   weling6659@charter.net

And I wish to thank you in advance for your new dedication to putting an end to the selfish and imperious wasting of water.

In closing, be assured this response to you was NOT written by Glenn Steiger.  He, and so many others, only WISH they could get away with addressing you in the same manner you address them.  But that wouldn’t be very good “customer service,” would it? 

Instead, Steiger will be forced to provide you essentially the same information and responses, but in a format that basically blows a lot of smoke up your ass, an effort to make it appear you were not being quite the imperious, selfish and rude person that you irrefutably have been on this matter.

Have a nice day.

Your Civil Servant.