Orange County Official Responds

Allison Hester

New member
I have said publicly I would report when I determined the cause of discrepancies among those involved in the Orange County situation. I have seen some of the correspondence, which led me to interview Richard Boon this morning. While I have not gotten into the weeds of what all was said and where miscommunications might have occurred, I am convinced that while Boon knew of the document that was posted online, he intended for it to serve a different purpose. With Mr. Boon's approval, I am releasing a statement which I have posted on our website.
 
The workshop was cancelled. A bunch of business owners, Association members, storm water officials, association leaders, and many others wasted a ton of time and resources dealing with "a breakdown in communication."
Looks like a huge net negative for our industry. Can't wait to see more time and resources wasted putting out the next fire in the next city Robert corresponds with.
 
Hey Tony the Uamcc is working on ramping a program for out reach.

I'm going to stArt in my own city along with OC since everyone knows I have interest in OC by now.

Keep in mind that will make mistakes like the Pwna , ours won't be communication becUse this bod is state or art on this matter. We all know what's going on daily if not hourly.

It's no joke real time accounting an member rolls are going live online for Bod to be insured contact with each an every member.

Will also work on apps for future news an bbs.

The current news letter is in 3 issue witch will become larger reaching out to customers.

At the days end let's hope the PWNA learns from this an changes. This one is the second on record with the same leaders in place.

We reached out with a open discussion fri , stay tuned all Pwna Uamcc are invited next week for a progress report.


We will be updating our enviro program to members regular. No holding back, no reason to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If I read the website correctly Allison mentions that she will investigate everything no matter what but in the end of the article she mentions that she will not investigate the issue any further. Did I read that correctly?

If so, there will be no questioning Robert Hinderliter why he lied, lied to the pwna, lied to Allison, lied to the OC, and lied to the readers of the article?

I am just trying to understand all of this new information.

What did Robert Hinderliter say when you questioned him about his lying to everyone?
 
If I read the website correctly Allison mentions that she will investigate everything no matter what but in the end of the article she mentions that she will not investigate the issue any further. Did I read that correctly?

If so, there will be no questioning Robert Hinderliter why he lied, lied to the pwna, lied to Allison, lied to the OC, and lied to the readers of the article?

I am just trying to understand all of this new information.

What did Robert Hinderliter say when you questioned him about his lying to everyone?

Hear! Hear!
 
How did all of this turn out?

Where is the "Investigation"?

Where are the results of this "Investigation"?

I guess the truth hurts more than people want it to, people probably realize now that lots of people were lied to and still don't believe they were lied to.

Where is truthful journalism today, like lots of other industries it is lost to the new industry of writing what people are told to by the people who pay them.
 
How did this all Turn OUT, Lies are ok?

How did all of this turn out?

Where is the "Investigation"?

Where are the results of this "Investigation"?

I guess the truth hurts more than people want it to, people probably realize now that lots of people were lied to and still don't believe they were lied to.

Where is truthful journalism today, like lots of other industries it is lost to the new industry of writing what people are told to by the people who pay them.

What part of Lies Are Ok don't you guys understand? LOL

Chris, you hit the nail on the head - dead center!
 
For Richard Boon to talk with me and give me a statement, he said I had to call off my Freedom of Information Act request or he would send it to legal and potentially sue us over the interview with Robert H. While I don't believe he has a right to ask me not to file under the FOI, and while I don't believe he could sue over the article since it was stated the responses were based on an interview, it's a fight I don't really want to take on -- especially when only around 100 people even read the original article. Plus, I wanted to hear his side of the story, and I published that in my retraction that I mentioned at the top of this thread.

So I have one involved party (Robert) who believes there was miscommunication, and another involved party that won't let me look for possible miscommunications without a fight and threats of a lawsuit.

As I mentioned in the retraction, Boon's say is final in the situation. I have published a retraction, taken down the original article, taken Richard Boon's statement and that's all I plan to do at this moment.
 
Where is truthful journalism today, like lots of other industries it is lost to the new industry of writing what people are told to by the people who pay them.

Allison, I don't mean to pile on here, but what do you have to say in response to Chris' statement? I ask this because the original article certainly appeared to have been developed under that sort of a framework. Personally I think that you're an honest person that got lied to.

I was involved in this on the UAMCC side from the absolute very get go and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt (as in 100%) that Mr. Boone and Orange did not lie, nor are they lying now. They're hard working folks who've had a belly full of this nonsense. Who can blame them?

Allison, if you're really looking for the truth, you're looking in the wrong wood pile.
 
(Sorry. I crafted a long response, then when I hit submit I was logged out of the system so it didn't post. I will try again.)

I agree, Ted, for the most part. (Not with Chris' statement, but with what you are saying).

As for the "framework" of the article. Let me explain again. Robert contacted me and said he wanted me to publish his response to the situation. He wanted it to go somewhere besides the BBS. I've known Robert for 20 years, I wanted to help, so I wrote it and put it on my site. (I was not paid by ANYONE to do this, so basically I put a lot of extra work and heartache on myself for free.) I came up with the questions, based on feedback that people were posting on the various forums. I posted it on our site (not in the magazine) and promoted it only on the various BBs, so as to only draw attention from those who were likely already aware of the situation. The information I reported was wrong, and as soon as I figured that out, I worked night and day to try to do what I could to "fix" it as best I could.

Chris wants to know why I haven't reported on why Robert is lying. I can't report on WHY if Robert doesn't believe he was lying. He says there was miscommunication. Honestly, even if I read through all the correspondence, I probably can't prove he was lying because I can't prove how he perceived certain information, or how OC perceived certain information. I do know that the OC was aware of the document that was posted. I believe, however, that the OC never intended for it to be more than something for the PWNA membership.

Let me clarify, I'm not saying that the OC is lying. I don't think that Boon made the comments about cancelling the FOIA request because he had something to hide. (I don't know that for sure, but that wasn't the sense I was getting.) I think they are a small department that was overwhelmed by the response they got, some which in his words were "quite heated," he was worried about the well being of his associate, and they just wanted it to go away. I mention the FOIA request cancellation now only to explain why I didn't pursue this further.

Finally, do I REALLY want to find out the truth? I think I already clarified the key elements: OC contacted the PWNA with plans for a workshop only, the BMPs were not to be changed, and the PWNA BOD was not aware of what was happening behind the scenes. Do I want to do an article on who lied to whom? Not when only a little over 100 people read any of this on our site. Most of our readers don't have a clue about any of this, and frankly don't really care. They are busy running their businesses and look to eClean for ways to do that.

As for the journalist comment, that term ("journalist") keeps getting thrown around, and frankly, I don't know that it's the correct term. I'm a writer. I minored in "writing." I realized very quickly that I did not like journalism and I got out of that department in college. I do a lot of research, I do a lot of interviews, and I write a lot of articles based on that information. But they are generally not "journalistic" in nature. I've been asked time and again to cover controversial topics, and I've said time and again I don't want to be an investigative reporter, and that is not the mission of eClean. I made an exception when I published the interview with Robert because he asked me to, and we've known each other for 20 years. And it came back to bite me.
 
Last edited:
(

Robert contacted me and said he wanted me to publish his response to the situation. He wanted it to go somewhere besides the BBS. I've known Robert for 20 years, I wanted to help, so I wrote it and put it on my site.

Did you not find it odd that after all his years of posting erroneous information on this and other BBS, never answering on this and other BBS when someone would question him, that he would request it be done this way, specifically saying he wanted his response "to go somewhere besides the BBS"....and is the only reason you wanted to help is because you've known him for 20 years, or are there other reasons you wanted to help"???
 
Did you not find it odd that after all his years of posting erroneous information on this and other BBS, never answering on this and other BBS when someone would question him, that he would request it be done this way, specifically saying he wanted his response "to go somewhere besides the BBS"....and is the only reason you wanted to help is because you've known him for 20 years, or are there other reasons you wanted to help"???
What I have seen is a lot of false accusations and lies posted on this board about me and others. So I could completely understand why he didn't want to respond here, or elsewhere. It's an ugly place over here. And so yes, that played into my decision. Plus, he believed I could write the response more clearly, and that made sense to me. He said he posted the "BMPs" on here to share information but had no intention to respond to personal attacks. I understood that as well -- although I don't think he should have posted the information here, even if it was correct.

Doug, I'm sorry but I don't know what other "reasons" you are implying.
 
(Sorry. I crafted a long response, then when I hit submit I was logged out of the system so it didn't post. I will try again.)

I agree, Ted, for the most part. (Not with Chris' statement, but with what you are saying).

As for the "framework" of the article. Let me explain again. Robert contacted me and said he wanted me to publish his response to the situation. He wanted it to go somewhere besides the BBS. I've known Robert for 20 years, I wanted to help, so I wrote it and put it on my site. (I was not paid by ANYONE to do this, so basically I put a lot of extra work and heartache on myself for free.) I came up with the questions, based on feedback that people were posting on the various forums. I posted it on our site (not in the magazine) and promoted it only on the various BBs, so as to only draw attention from those who were likely already aware of the situation. The information I reported was wrong, and as soon as I figured that out, I worked night and day to try to do what I could to "fix" it as best I could.

Chris wants to know why I haven't reported on why Robert is lying. I can't report on WHY if Robert doesn't believe he was lying. He says there was miscommunication. Honestly, even if I read through all the correspondence, I probably can't prove he was lying because I can't prove how he perceived certain information, or how OC perceived certain information. I do know that the OC was aware of the document that was posted. I believe, however, that the OC never intended for it to be more than something for the PWNA membership.

Let me clarify, I'm not saying that the OC is lying. I don't think that Boon made the comments about cancelling the FOIA request because he had something to hide. (I don't know that for sure, but that wasn't the sense I was getting.) I think they are a small department that was overwhelmed by the response they got, some which in his words were "quite heated," he was worried about the safety of his associate, and they just wanted it to go away. I mention the FOIA request cancellation now only to explain why I didn't pursue this further.

Finally, do I REALLY want to find out the truth? I think I already clarified the key elements: OC contacted the PWNA with plans for a workshop only, the BMPs were not to be changed, and the PWNA BOD was not aware of what was happening behind the scenes. Do I want to do an article on who lied to whom? Not when only a little over 100 people read any of this on our site. Most of our readers don't have a clue about any of this, and frankly don't really care. They are busy running their businesses and look to eClean for ways to do that.

As for the journalist comment, that term ("journalist") keeps getting thrown around, and frankly, I don't know that it's the correct term. I'm a writer. I minored in "writing." I realized very quickly that I did not like journalism and I got out of that department in college. I do a lot of research, I do a lot of interviews, and I write a lot of articles based on that information. But they are generally not "journalistic" in nature. I've been asked time and again to cover controversial topics, and I've said time and again I don't want to be an investigative reporter, and that is not the mission of eClean. I made an exception when I published the interview with Robert because he asked me to, and we've known each other for 20 years. And it came back to bite me.

Thank you Allison for further clarifying some things.

OC became aware of Robert's posting early the following Monday morning when their phone started ringing with calls coming not only coming from concerned contractors, but more significantly from surrounding counties. The counties wanted to know why or if OC was considering changing its BMPs without their having been told and/or consulted about it. But the thing is, OC would have never done that. In and of itself that puts a long nose on Robert.

You wote: "Not when only a little over 100 people read any of this on our site. Most of our readers don't have a clue about any of this, and frankly don't really care. They are busy running their businesses and look to eClean for ways to do that."

If eClean readers really look to the mag for ways to successfully run their businesses and they really don't care about an issue like this situation, well then maybe they need to get a clue.

That only a little over 100 read any of it means nothing. Why? Because eClean is not the center of the mobile cleaning industry. By way of comparison, the site your on right now (PWI) gets 5,000 visits a day.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    233.7 KB · Views: 12
What I have seen is a lot of false accusations and lies posted on this board about me and others. So I could completely understand why he didn't want to respond here, or elsewhere. It's an ugly place over here. And so yes, that played into my decision. Plus, he believed I could write the response better, and that made sense to me. He said he posted the "BMPs" on here to share information but had no intention to respond to personal attacks. I understood that as well -- although I don't think he should have posted the information here, even if it was correct.

Doug, I'm sorry but I don't know what other "reasons" you are implying.

Am not implying anything..just asking if thats the only reason you wanted to help?
 
Back
Top