Laserfiche WebLink
and every claim file would have too speak for itself. The claims representative or supervisor <br /> could access the file any time and read the complete story. There cannot be any missing <br /> information in case there was a complaint or a DORA investigation of any kind. <br /> Filing a Complaint <br /> On the public side this is how or works when a complaint is filed. It has been the experience of <br /> the SPOs that the DRMS has little to no contact with the complaintant before a decision is <br /> made. It is a "shot in the dark" for the complaintant to provide the adequate needed data and <br /> information. If there is something missing in the complaint, one would think that the DRMS <br /> would contact the complaintant by phone or in writing requesting additional information or <br /> explaination. No! The claim is just denied for the lack of data or data does not support the <br /> complaintant position? For most of the SPOs this is the very first time they filed a complaint. <br /> How does the public even know what exactly is needed in the complaint? Filing a complaint is <br /> not Public user friendly. Communication the key to a complete any investigation. <br /> Example (1) Stout sent in her first complaint and Peter Hayes was the investigator. Peter Hayes <br /> did not have Ms. Stout meet him on site during the first inspection. Ms. Stout had sold the <br /> property and the new owner would not allow access. Peter denied the complaint because of no <br /> access to inspect and because of a letter from JC York and an email from Goza. Goza is a friend <br /> and client of JC York on another project. Peter Hayes did not personally inspect the well of <br /> Goza nor did he actually measure or observe the measurement at the Goza well.JC York and <br /> Goza are not independant engineers or ground water experts nor was there a "direct <br /> observation" by an Agent from the DRMS. The first complaint was just denied! Stout had to file <br /> a second complaint to have Peter Hayes meet with her directly to investigate the well. <br /> Example (2) Director Means denied the Koehler wells because there was not enough data to <br /> support the Koehler complaint. Director Means was provided a mountain of data and <br /> information that was supporting the Koehler complaint. Director Means told me that I had to <br /> Cease sending information to the DRMS. There was not a letter nor phone call from Director <br /> Means requesting further explaination or requesting additional data to support our position. <br /> Sample request from the DRMS " We received your information but are needing more <br /> explaination and facts to support your position. Please contact me by phone to discuss the file <br /> or your complaint will be denied." The Operator admitted in the last McGrane Modflow report <br /> that the Koehler Wells were affected from the dewatering, see report below. See the Operator <br /> supplied data (Current drawdown from predevelopement conditions). The data backs up the <br /> claims by Koehler on the loss of ground water. Director Means denied the complaint of ground <br /> water damages to the Koehler Wells. <br /> This is a portion of The New McGrane report is dated January 31, 2020 and it was added to the <br /> DRMS file April of 2020. The report indicates that there are four wells along WCR 62 where the <br /> ground water has been damaged by the Loloff Pit and Derr Pit operations. <br /> 2 <br />