I'm still watching this Recology thing...Are You?

Something still stinks here.

For those who may have forgotten, the laudable goals of Recology and San Francisco - to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills - have turned out to raise some serious questions about the city's and company's claims, and Recology's credibility.

This is not the first time that I've heard or written about Recology and waste issues in Oakland and San Francisco. Nor is it even the second time (that was back here).

What this episode with EBMUD raises are more questions, especially if you want to trust the credibility of a waste company from San Francisco that has operated there without competition for 80 years and now wants to increase its activity in Oakland.

In January a state appeals court reinstated a lawsuit brought by a former Recology employe who says the company made fraudulent overpayments in its recycling program and fired him for reporting it to superiors and police. The lawsuit was filed last year brought by Brian McVeigh, a former Recology manager turned whistle-blower. It has not gone away, it has been reinstated by a state appeals court, and McVeigh's lawyers claim the alleged fraud schemes in over-reporting could cost Recology $10 million in fines.

Remember as well, that a national waste industry publication, Waste 360, also raised questions about the credibility of claims by Recology and San Francisco that the only sends 20 percent of its waste to landfill and the rest is diverted to other purposes - recycling, energy to waste, composting, etc - all laudable goals. Except that Waste 360 points out San Francisco sent 440,000 tons of waste to landfills last year. If that is only 20 percent of the city's waste, then the city would have generated 2,220,000 tons of waste, about 2.73 tons of trash for every man, woman and child in the city. If that's true, it would be more than three times the national average.

Who was it that said "trust but verify"? Yeah, well - I think the time for trusting is over. I think we need to go straight to "watching these guys like a hawk."

Do we really want to be making deals with guys who look like they have a history of pulling fast ones?