Tracy Wood - VOICE OF OC - March 1, 2012
The Orange County Board of Supervisors added to the CalOptima drama this week, directing lawyers to ask the county grand jury and state’s political watchdog commission to investigate anonymous conflict-of-interest charges leveled against CalOptima Chairman Ed Kacic.
Kacic said he welcomed “a complete and thorough investigation” and hoped the grand jury or another agency would also delve into who was behind writing and distributing the anonymous letter and why.
The letter, which circulated earlier this month, accused Kacic of trying to steer a potential federal grant to his foundation. The letter was strongly refuted by Kacic, his board of directors and the executive director of a group of county health organizations that actually would receive the grant.
The letter also made unsubstantiated claims that CalOptima board member Mary Anne Foo accepts money from CalOptima, which Foo and CalOptima Chief Executive Officer Richard Chambers deny.
CalOptima provides Medicare and Medi-Cal programs for about 400,000 poor children, their parents, pregnant women, senior citizens and the disabled. Low-income men generally don't qualify for the program's services. The county doesn’t contribute funds to the program.
The vote to make the referrals to the grand jury and Fair Political Practices Commission broke along the same lines as several other recent votes regarding CalOptima — Supervisors Janet Nguyen, Bill Campbell and Pat Bates in favor and Supervisors Shawn Nelson and John Moorlach against.
Nelson warned the majority that they were setting a precedent where, from now on, anyone who wanted to damage someone could “just lob in an anonymous letter.”
The board majority said they just wanted assurances from the grand jury and the FPPC that there were no conflicts.
But following the meeting, Nelson said the supervisors were sending a message that " 'I don’t want to besmirch anybody’s reputation. By the way, would you please send this guy’s name to the grand jury for investigation?' It’s just a different way of besmirching someone’s name.”
Nelson went on to say that if the grand jury did agree to look into the supervisor’s request, they could dig deeper and investigate who sent the anonymous letter and whether the sender benefited financially or politically from the results.
“That person could very well find out they’re the butt of their own joke, I suppose,” said Nelson. “Boomerangs do tend to return to the person who threw them.”
Campbell, who along with Bates voted to support a grand jury investigation, said “it’s pretty clear to me” Kacic didn’t do what was alleged in the anonymous letter.
Even so, he said he supported the grand jury and FPPC inquiries “so that neither he nor we end up being embarrassed here.”
Bates said the inquiries were “I think, the best thing that can happen" for Kacic to have his name cleared. She said people are “saying this is bunk. Let’s get an official bunking letter.”
It wasn’t immediately clear whether the current grand jury, whose term ends in June, would agree to the board’s request or have time to handle the issue.
The board also unanimously approved a proposal by Nguyen to remove Adriana A. Moreno, program director of the Children’s Health Initiative of Orange County, from the CalOptima board. Meanwhile, three other CalOptima board members, including Foo, were approved to complete the rest of their terms.
But changes made by Nguyen could mean some board members wouldn’t be eligible for a second four-year term once their current terms are up.
Moreno's removal and the continuing efforts aimed at Kacic were seen by insiders as the latest step in a campaign by Nguyen, with help from Campbell and Bates, to realign the CalOptima board and give more control to Nguyen and the medical industry.
The high demand for experienced executives in the health care industry and Nguyen’s criticisms have combined to cause six top CalOptima executives, including Chambers, the CEO, to resign in recent months.
A $250-per-person fundraiser for Nguyen, hosted by local hospitals, was scheduled for Tuesday night.
Nguyen said Moreno should be removed as a CalOptima board member because CalOptima gives her charity free office space and technical advice worth about $80,000 a year. CalOptima also paid to move the charity into the new CalOptima building in Orange, said Nguyen.
The anonymous letter alleged that the Irvine Health Foundation, which Kacic heads, stood to financially benefit from a federal grant it was seeking on behalf of Managed System of Care, a group of health organizations that includes CalOptima, the county Health Care Agency, hospitals, clinics and other healthcare providers.
But Kacic, his board of directors and the director of Managed System of Care said the Irvine Health Foundation simply acted on behalf of Managed System because it hasn’t yet formed its own nonprofit. Before the grant application was submitted, Kacic told everyone involved that his foundation wouldn’t accept any money, he and others said.
“We are incensed that the authors of this vicious smear did not have the decency to check their facts with IHF [Irvine Health Foundation] before acting,” stated a Feb. 27 letter from the foundation’s directors to the Board of Supervisors.
“We are angry and surprised that they have maliciously impugned our President and our organization when we were simply facilitating an opportunity for Orange County to receive funding for much-needed programs to benefit our community’s poor and sick.”
The Irvine Health Foundation board also criticized the Hospital Association of Southern California for using the anonymous letter in a trade association blog post and newsletter.
“We are also surprised and disappointed that senior executives of the Hospital Association of Southern California have continued to spread this damaging misinformation despite having received the facts disproving the allegation,” stated the Irvine Health Foundation letter to the Board of Supervisors.
The Irvine Health Foundation was formed in the 1980s and is one of the few Orange County foundations that provide grants to health-related organizations. According to the letter, it has awarded about $25 million in grants to county groups.
Please contact Tracy Wood directly at twood@voiceofoc.org and follow her on Twitter: twitter.com/tracyVOC
Friday, March 2, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
(Kern County) Grand Jury addresses County Supervisors’ salaries, travel expenses
By Stephanie Forshee
Daily Independent
Posted Mar 01, 2012 @ 10:30 AM
Ridgecrest, Calif. —
With a population less than in Sacramento, Contra Costa and Fresno counties, Kern County’s Board of Supervisors receive higher annual salaries - a point highlighted in a Grand Jury report released Wednesday. The report also addresses travel expenses for Kern County and its transportation and discretionary funds carryover.
According to the report, the administration and audit committee received two written complaints and numerous verbal inquiries and comments regarding activities and expenses incurred by the five supervisors. The recommendations of the Grand Jury essentially suggest more transparency for travel expenses
Kern’s supervisors oversee just less than 840,000 constituents and receive about $112,400 annually for salaries and benefits, whereas Sacramento County with its 1.4 million residents receives $103,260 per year. No recommendations were made to indicate a needed modification of salaries or transportation from the Grand Jury.
The report states that First District Supervisor Jon McQuiston consistently incurs the most travel reimbursements. Among the findings also are that he serves on the most committees, multiple outside of the County.
McQuiston confirmed that he does serve on several committees that meet in various cities inside and outside the county, as well as in other states at times.
“It’s all at the discretion of the Board,” he said.
He explained that he accrues the most travel time because he is the only supervisor who does not live in the Bakersfield area, with the exception of District Supervisor Zack Scrivner who recently moved to Tehachapi.
“When I work, my mileage starts at the Ridgecrest office. The general feedback I’ve had is they (Ridgecrest residents) are happy for me to reside in Ridgecrest. It is an expense, but I think to live in Ridgecrest and keep my promise to the community - nobody has ever complained to me from anywhere. I believe that at least the people in the Indian Wells Valley are appreciative I’ve stayed in Ridgecrest all these 15 years,” he said. “
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board write an annual summary stating the number of committees each supervisor serves on and the mileage and expenses incurred, and make the information public to increase public awareness and diminish criticism. Another recommendation for travel is that an out-of-county travel request and authorization form be submitted prior to the arrangement of the travel.
McQuiston deferred to the County Administrative Office on the feasibility of the Grand Jury’s recommendations, which must receive a response within 30 days.
Another concern listed is that the Discretionary Fund carryover for the 2010-2011 fiscal year was in excess of $1.8 million, whereas the other ten most populated areas throughout the state’s carryover vary from zero to $10 million. The Grand Jury requests that the Board of Supervisors clarify an amount to be allocated for each supervisor and appropriate 50 percent as a Contingency Fund.
Other recommendations on the fund are: “The remaining 50% can be allocated to Supervisors who submit a Board approved written request stipulating the purpose, cost, and estimated date of completion for a project (e.g., $X for new sewer system on 18th Street, Bakersfield, + estimated completion date). Institute an annual formal review of long term programs/projects identified by Supervisors. In cases where the carryover funds are not enough for the cost of a project, the annual input funds can be ear marked for the total cost of the identified project(s) and made public in an annual report—thus providing accountability and transparency for citizens. Although a $1.8 Million carryover is only a small percentage of the total County Budget, citizens consider this amount significant.”
“There’s a lot of little things you can fix for $5,000 to $10,000 that will never make it to the annual budget,” McQuiston said, citing the Teen Court in Ridgecrest to which he has allocated County discretionary funds.
District Supervisor Ray Watson echoed his support of keeping the discretionary funds intact and continuing to permit the carryover each year.
Watson said that if the carryover funds were not allowed, he would not be able to create a sewer trunk in South Taft that he has in the works which costs approximately $240,000, he said.
“The discretionary fund is helpful to me and my district,” he said. “They are small amount projects we can move forward on without having to get lumped in with dozens of major projects that have to be prioritized. A lot of these things fall to the bottom of the list. The sewer trunk, I’m hoping to have it built this year. It would have been very difficult otherwise.”
Both Watson and McQuiston agreed upon the accuracy presented within the Grand Jury statement and acknowledged the validity of the constituents’ concern.
“The information is as they represented,” McQuiston said. “People can draw whatever conclusions that they want to.”
Calls to the Grand Jury Foreman Dwight Reynolds and Supervisors Scrivner, Karen Goh, and Mike Maggard were unreturned for this article.
The final report can be found at www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury/early_releases/.
http://www.ridgecrestca.com/news/x132508461/Grand-Jury-addresses-County-Supervisors-salaries-travel-expenses
Daily Independent
Posted Mar 01, 2012 @ 10:30 AM
Ridgecrest, Calif. —
With a population less than in Sacramento, Contra Costa and Fresno counties, Kern County’s Board of Supervisors receive higher annual salaries - a point highlighted in a Grand Jury report released Wednesday. The report also addresses travel expenses for Kern County and its transportation and discretionary funds carryover.
According to the report, the administration and audit committee received two written complaints and numerous verbal inquiries and comments regarding activities and expenses incurred by the five supervisors. The recommendations of the Grand Jury essentially suggest more transparency for travel expenses
Kern’s supervisors oversee just less than 840,000 constituents and receive about $112,400 annually for salaries and benefits, whereas Sacramento County with its 1.4 million residents receives $103,260 per year. No recommendations were made to indicate a needed modification of salaries or transportation from the Grand Jury.
The report states that First District Supervisor Jon McQuiston consistently incurs the most travel reimbursements. Among the findings also are that he serves on the most committees, multiple outside of the County.
McQuiston confirmed that he does serve on several committees that meet in various cities inside and outside the county, as well as in other states at times.
“It’s all at the discretion of the Board,” he said.
He explained that he accrues the most travel time because he is the only supervisor who does not live in the Bakersfield area, with the exception of District Supervisor Zack Scrivner who recently moved to Tehachapi.
“When I work, my mileage starts at the Ridgecrest office. The general feedback I’ve had is they (Ridgecrest residents) are happy for me to reside in Ridgecrest. It is an expense, but I think to live in Ridgecrest and keep my promise to the community - nobody has ever complained to me from anywhere. I believe that at least the people in the Indian Wells Valley are appreciative I’ve stayed in Ridgecrest all these 15 years,” he said. “
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board write an annual summary stating the number of committees each supervisor serves on and the mileage and expenses incurred, and make the information public to increase public awareness and diminish criticism. Another recommendation for travel is that an out-of-county travel request and authorization form be submitted prior to the arrangement of the travel.
McQuiston deferred to the County Administrative Office on the feasibility of the Grand Jury’s recommendations, which must receive a response within 30 days.
Another concern listed is that the Discretionary Fund carryover for the 2010-2011 fiscal year was in excess of $1.8 million, whereas the other ten most populated areas throughout the state’s carryover vary from zero to $10 million. The Grand Jury requests that the Board of Supervisors clarify an amount to be allocated for each supervisor and appropriate 50 percent as a Contingency Fund.
Other recommendations on the fund are: “The remaining 50% can be allocated to Supervisors who submit a Board approved written request stipulating the purpose, cost, and estimated date of completion for a project (e.g., $X for new sewer system on 18th Street, Bakersfield, + estimated completion date). Institute an annual formal review of long term programs/projects identified by Supervisors. In cases where the carryover funds are not enough for the cost of a project, the annual input funds can be ear marked for the total cost of the identified project(s) and made public in an annual report—thus providing accountability and transparency for citizens. Although a $1.8 Million carryover is only a small percentage of the total County Budget, citizens consider this amount significant.”
“There’s a lot of little things you can fix for $5,000 to $10,000 that will never make it to the annual budget,” McQuiston said, citing the Teen Court in Ridgecrest to which he has allocated County discretionary funds.
District Supervisor Ray Watson echoed his support of keeping the discretionary funds intact and continuing to permit the carryover each year.
Watson said that if the carryover funds were not allowed, he would not be able to create a sewer trunk in South Taft that he has in the works which costs approximately $240,000, he said.
“The discretionary fund is helpful to me and my district,” he said. “They are small amount projects we can move forward on without having to get lumped in with dozens of major projects that have to be prioritized. A lot of these things fall to the bottom of the list. The sewer trunk, I’m hoping to have it built this year. It would have been very difficult otherwise.”
Both Watson and McQuiston agreed upon the accuracy presented within the Grand Jury statement and acknowledged the validity of the constituents’ concern.
“The information is as they represented,” McQuiston said. “People can draw whatever conclusions that they want to.”
Calls to the Grand Jury Foreman Dwight Reynolds and Supervisors Scrivner, Karen Goh, and Mike Maggard were unreturned for this article.
The final report can be found at www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury/early_releases/.
http://www.ridgecrestca.com/news/x132508461/Grand-Jury-addresses-County-Supervisors-salaries-travel-expenses
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Kern County: Grand Jury taking volunteer applications
Kern Valley Sun - Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Applications for the Kern County Grand Jury will be accepted from now through April 13. The Kern County Grand Jury is made up of a group of 19 citizens, randomly selected from a pool of citizens who have made their interest known. Applicants are interviewed and then nominated by the Superior Court Judges of our County. Judges are very interested in obtaining a volunteer pool representative of the ethnic and cultural diversity of all communities in our County. The final selection process will be conducted in open session of court during the month of June.
Once selected, Grand Jurors act as an investigative body to ensure that county and city governments are efficiently operated and that public funds are effectively spent. The Grand Jury also hears evidence of public offences presented by the Kern County District Attorney’s Office and, where appropriate, may issue criminal indictments. Applicants must be willing to spend approximately 20 hours a week in performing these tasks.
Candidates for the Grand Jury must be Unites States citizens, at least 18 years of age, have a working knowledge of the English language and have resided in the County for at least one year. Grand Jurors serve for a one year period beginning July 2012.
If Grand Jury service is for you, you may contact Deanna Maxwell at the Kern County Grand Jury, 1415 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301, or telephone 661-868-4797 to obtain your application for nomination. You may also download an application from the Grand Jury website at www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury.
Applications for the Kern County Grand Jury will be accepted from now through April 13. The Kern County Grand Jury is made up of a group of 19 citizens, randomly selected from a pool of citizens who have made their interest known. Applicants are interviewed and then nominated by the Superior Court Judges of our County. Judges are very interested in obtaining a volunteer pool representative of the ethnic and cultural diversity of all communities in our County. The final selection process will be conducted in open session of court during the month of June.
Once selected, Grand Jurors act as an investigative body to ensure that county and city governments are efficiently operated and that public funds are effectively spent. The Grand Jury also hears evidence of public offences presented by the Kern County District Attorney’s Office and, where appropriate, may issue criminal indictments. Applicants must be willing to spend approximately 20 hours a week in performing these tasks.
Candidates for the Grand Jury must be Unites States citizens, at least 18 years of age, have a working knowledge of the English language and have resided in the County for at least one year. Grand Jurors serve for a one year period beginning July 2012.
If Grand Jury service is for you, you may contact Deanna Maxwell at the Kern County Grand Jury, 1415 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301, or telephone 661-868-4797 to obtain your application for nomination. You may also download an application from the Grand Jury website at www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury.
Monday, February 27, 2012
San Diego County: CITIZENS OVERSIGHT SUBMITS COMPLAINT TO GRAND JURY ALLEGING MAYOR SANDERS' EMBEZZLEMENT IN SNAPDRAGON CASE
East County Magazine
District Attorney and Mayoral Candidate Bonnie Dumanis Unlikely to Prosecute Due to Political Ties to Sanders, Complaint says
February 26, 2012 (San Diego) - Today, Ray Lutz, national coordinator of Citizens Oversight Projects (COPS - Citizens Oversight, Inc.), submitted a complaint to the San Diego County Grand Jury regarding the claim that Mayor Jerry Sanders committed felony embezzlement by selling promotional signage to Qualcomm, allowing them to change their sign to "Snapdragon" during one NFL football game and two college bowl games for only $1000.
Sanders was notified by the City Attorney that the agreement with Qualcomm was unlawful. Sanders proceeded anyway, generating an agreement after the fact which was not approved by the City Attorney, as required by law, and not ratified by the City Council. "We are worried that District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis will not prosecute her friend and political endorser in the Mayoral election, and so this submission to the Grand Jury was therefore required. We hope they will do their job and investigate this issue and prosecute Sanders -- no one should be above the law," Lutz said.
COPS submitted the complaint also to the San Diego City Attorney, San Diego City Council, Mayor Jerry Sanders, and District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis. COPS also attempted to make a citizens arrest of the Mayor on January 29, 2012, at his office but the San Diego Police, who report to Sanders, would not assist in the arrest. Sanders office staff said he was "not in" and said they did not know when he would be in, despite the fact that earlier, the same office staff admitted that his schedule is set two months in advance.
Lutz said the Grand Jury is perfectly suited for such an inquiry because this case includes illegal operations by the Mayor, overstepping his lawfully granted powers, and providing the use of public assets by a corporation for a promotional campaign. Sanders provided the promotional exposure to the "Snapdragon" product line by Qualcomm for a scant $1,000 instead of at least $125,000 or even much more, to bring the promotional exposure in line with market values, he added.
"We attempted to arrest Sanders because it is our right as citizens to make such an arrest based on California law when it is clear that someone has committed a felony. In this case, even the City Attorney agreed in two documents that Sanders operated unlawfully," Lutz said.
District Attorney and Mayoral Candidate Bonnie Dumanis Unlikely to Prosecute Due to Political Ties to Sanders, Complaint says
February 26, 2012 (San Diego) - Today, Ray Lutz, national coordinator of Citizens Oversight Projects (COPS - Citizens Oversight, Inc.), submitted a complaint to the San Diego County Grand Jury regarding the claim that Mayor Jerry Sanders committed felony embezzlement by selling promotional signage to Qualcomm, allowing them to change their sign to "Snapdragon" during one NFL football game and two college bowl games for only $1000.
Sanders was notified by the City Attorney that the agreement with Qualcomm was unlawful. Sanders proceeded anyway, generating an agreement after the fact which was not approved by the City Attorney, as required by law, and not ratified by the City Council. "We are worried that District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis will not prosecute her friend and political endorser in the Mayoral election, and so this submission to the Grand Jury was therefore required. We hope they will do their job and investigate this issue and prosecute Sanders -- no one should be above the law," Lutz said.
COPS submitted the complaint also to the San Diego City Attorney, San Diego City Council, Mayor Jerry Sanders, and District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis. COPS also attempted to make a citizens arrest of the Mayor on January 29, 2012, at his office but the San Diego Police, who report to Sanders, would not assist in the arrest. Sanders office staff said he was "not in" and said they did not know when he would be in, despite the fact that earlier, the same office staff admitted that his schedule is set two months in advance.
Lutz said the Grand Jury is perfectly suited for such an inquiry because this case includes illegal operations by the Mayor, overstepping his lawfully granted powers, and providing the use of public assets by a corporation for a promotional campaign. Sanders provided the promotional exposure to the "Snapdragon" product line by Qualcomm for a scant $1,000 instead of at least $125,000 or even much more, to bring the promotional exposure in line with market values, he added.
"We attempted to arrest Sanders because it is our right as citizens to make such an arrest based on California law when it is clear that someone has committed a felony. In this case, even the City Attorney agreed in two documents that Sanders operated unlawfully," Lutz said.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
GRAND JUROR APPLICANTS NEEDED FOR MENDOCINO COUNTY
GRAND JUROR APPLICANTS NEEDED FOR MENDOCINO COUNTY: All qualified citizens interested in serving on the 2012-13 Mendocino County Grand Jury are invited to submit their applications to the Superior Court for consideration. The 19 members of the Grand Jury serve for one year and are empowered to investigate the operations of county, city and district governments and to provide civil oversight of local government department and agencies and respond to citizen complaints. A Grand Juror must be a U.S. citizen, 18 years or older, a resident of Mendocino County for at least one year, and sufficiently fluent in written and spoken English. Applications and related information are available and can be downloaded at www.mendocino.courts.ca.gov/grandjury. The application may also be obtained in person at the Superior Court, 100 N. State St., rm. 303, in Ukiah or by calling the Grand Jury at 707-463-4320.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Grand Jury gives Golden Hills CSD clean bill of health
Monday, Feb 20 2012 07:01 AM
By Tehachapi News
The Kern Country Grand Jury recently released a copy of a report by its Special Districts Committee concerning the Golden Hills Community Services District.
The report is published here in its entirety:
GOLDEN HILLS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
On January 9, 2012, the Special Districts Committee (Committee) of the 2011-2012 Kern County Grand Jury, pursuant to California Penal Code §925 and §933.5, investigated the operations and management of the Golden Hills Community Services District (District). The District had not been reviewed since 2003.
PROCESS:
The Committee reviewed the District's "Consolidated Financial Statements, June 30, 2011 and 2010", including an "Independent Auditors' Report", and the 2005-2010 Budget. The Committee also reviewed the Board of Directors' Meeting Minutes for the last fiscal year (March 2011 to present), and viewed the District's website. The Committee then conducted a telephone interview with the General Manager for additional information.
BACKGROUND/FACTS:
A. The District was formed by Kern County Resolution 66-206 on May 3, 1966, and established on May 5, 1966. The original purpose of the District was to provide water, sewage disposal, garbage service, public recreation by means of parks, including (but not limited to) aquatic parks and recreational harbors, playgrounds, golf courses, swimming pools or recreation buildings, street lighting, mosquito abatement, street surfacing and maintenance, and construction of bridges, culverts, curbs, gutters, and drains.
B. The Mission of the District is: To provide the Golden Hills Community with a healthful, reliable water system; to support the inviting characteristics of our neighborhoods and natural beauty of our surroundings; and to strengthen our collaborative relationships with local and state governmental agencies.
C. The District:
* Provides potable water to its customers utilizing a water system approved by the Department of Health.
* Reviews and approves septic and building plans.
* Provides services for 21 housing tracts located within its boundaries of approximately 5,600 acres.
NOTE: Each housing tract has separate Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's). However, the District is no longer enforcing CC&R's, which has become a civil matter between property owners since 2010.
D. The development consists of approximately 4,200 lots, zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial uses. Water (supplied by 14 District owned wells) is furnished by the District's water system to each parcel, excluding some of the 2.5 acre lots in the northern section of the District. All water is tested regularly to insure that customers receive the safest drinking water possible.
FINDINGS:
The District provides a $2,500 scholarship for local students with money derived from the rental of cell tower space. The remainder of the rental money is used for beautification projects on public lands.
The District received a grant for $1.4 million to drill a well on the east side of the City of Tehachapi and construct a pipeline 3.5 miles long, back to Golden Hills, tying into the water system for emergency connection between Tehachapi and Golden Hills. In an emergency, water can be diverted in either direction.
The District maintains some private/semi-public roads, funded and sustained by the property owners within the District, for Tract #3366.
The Regional Urban Water Management Plan (Plan) was prepared to ensure water service reliability during normal, dry, or multiple dry years, and is in compliance with the requirements of Water Code Section #10620. The five agencies included in this Plan are:
* Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District
* Bear Valley Community Services District
* Golden Hills Community Services District
* Stallion Springs Community Services District
* City of Tehachapi
These agencies cooperate on various regional issues and have formed a Water Availability Preservation Committee comprised of representatives from each agency. A regional plan is being submitted (as opposed to separate individual plans) to share information, avoid duplication of efforts, reduce costs, and implement a coordinated regional approach to water management. All five of the participating agencies have agreed to set the baseline and conservation targets as a regional alliance.
The five agencies followed normal procedures for reviewing and adopting the Plan. Each agency:
* Reviewed a preliminary draft Plan.
* Made the draft Plan available to the public before holding a public hearing. (Copies of the Plan were on file at each of the agency offices.)
* Published legal notice in the Tehachapi News and mailed notices to stakeholders in the area.
* Held public workshops to ensure public comments were incorporated in the final Plan.
* Adopted the Plan by resolution at Board and Council Meetings.
OMMENTS:
The five agencies coordinated their efforts with relevant agencies while preparing the 2010 Plan to ensure that the data and issues were presented accurately. Water use statistics and projections presented in the 2010 Plan have been discussed and mutually agreed upon by the five agencies. A Letter of Agreement between the five agencies was signed in June 2011.
The Special Districts Committee of the 2011-2012 Kern County Grand Jury thanks the Golden Hills Community Services District's General Manager for excellent explanation and informative answers to the Committee's questions.
RECOMMENDATIONS: NONE
NOTES:
* The Golden Hills Community Services District should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review.
* Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at , and click on: Sign up for early releases.
* Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury.
NO RESPONSE REQUIRED
By Tehachapi News
The Kern Country Grand Jury recently released a copy of a report by its Special Districts Committee concerning the Golden Hills Community Services District.
The report is published here in its entirety:
GOLDEN HILLS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:
On January 9, 2012, the Special Districts Committee (Committee) of the 2011-2012 Kern County Grand Jury, pursuant to California Penal Code §925 and §933.5, investigated the operations and management of the Golden Hills Community Services District (District). The District had not been reviewed since 2003.
PROCESS:
The Committee reviewed the District's "Consolidated Financial Statements, June 30, 2011 and 2010", including an "Independent Auditors' Report", and the 2005-2010 Budget. The Committee also reviewed the Board of Directors' Meeting Minutes for the last fiscal year (March 2011 to present), and viewed the District's website. The Committee then conducted a telephone interview with the General Manager for additional information.
BACKGROUND/FACTS:
A. The District was formed by Kern County Resolution 66-206 on May 3, 1966, and established on May 5, 1966. The original purpose of the District was to provide water, sewage disposal, garbage service, public recreation by means of parks, including (but not limited to) aquatic parks and recreational harbors, playgrounds, golf courses, swimming pools or recreation buildings, street lighting, mosquito abatement, street surfacing and maintenance, and construction of bridges, culverts, curbs, gutters, and drains.
B. The Mission of the District is: To provide the Golden Hills Community with a healthful, reliable water system; to support the inviting characteristics of our neighborhoods and natural beauty of our surroundings; and to strengthen our collaborative relationships with local and state governmental agencies.
C. The District:
* Provides potable water to its customers utilizing a water system approved by the Department of Health.
* Reviews and approves septic and building plans.
* Provides services for 21 housing tracts located within its boundaries of approximately 5,600 acres.
NOTE: Each housing tract has separate Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's). However, the District is no longer enforcing CC&R's, which has become a civil matter between property owners since 2010.
D. The development consists of approximately 4,200 lots, zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial uses. Water (supplied by 14 District owned wells) is furnished by the District's water system to each parcel, excluding some of the 2.5 acre lots in the northern section of the District. All water is tested regularly to insure that customers receive the safest drinking water possible.
FINDINGS:
The District provides a $2,500 scholarship for local students with money derived from the rental of cell tower space. The remainder of the rental money is used for beautification projects on public lands.
The District received a grant for $1.4 million to drill a well on the east side of the City of Tehachapi and construct a pipeline 3.5 miles long, back to Golden Hills, tying into the water system for emergency connection between Tehachapi and Golden Hills. In an emergency, water can be diverted in either direction.
The District maintains some private/semi-public roads, funded and sustained by the property owners within the District, for Tract #3366.
The Regional Urban Water Management Plan (Plan) was prepared to ensure water service reliability during normal, dry, or multiple dry years, and is in compliance with the requirements of Water Code Section #10620. The five agencies included in this Plan are:
* Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District
* Bear Valley Community Services District
* Golden Hills Community Services District
* Stallion Springs Community Services District
* City of Tehachapi
These agencies cooperate on various regional issues and have formed a Water Availability Preservation Committee comprised of representatives from each agency. A regional plan is being submitted (as opposed to separate individual plans) to share information, avoid duplication of efforts, reduce costs, and implement a coordinated regional approach to water management. All five of the participating agencies have agreed to set the baseline and conservation targets as a regional alliance.
The five agencies followed normal procedures for reviewing and adopting the Plan. Each agency:
* Reviewed a preliminary draft Plan.
* Made the draft Plan available to the public before holding a public hearing. (Copies of the Plan were on file at each of the agency offices.)
* Published legal notice in the Tehachapi News and mailed notices to stakeholders in the area.
* Held public workshops to ensure public comments were incorporated in the final Plan.
* Adopted the Plan by resolution at Board and Council Meetings.
OMMENTS:
The five agencies coordinated their efforts with relevant agencies while preparing the 2010 Plan to ensure that the data and issues were presented accurately. Water use statistics and projections presented in the 2010 Plan have been discussed and mutually agreed upon by the five agencies. A Letter of Agreement between the five agencies was signed in June 2011.
The Special Districts Committee of the 2011-2012 Kern County Grand Jury thanks the Golden Hills Community Services District's General Manager for excellent explanation and informative answers to the Committee's questions.
RECOMMENDATIONS: NONE
NOTES:
* The Golden Hills Community Services District should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review.
* Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at , and click on: Sign up for early releases.
* Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury.
NO RESPONSE REQUIRED
Stanislaus County: Patterson pays $50,000 for officials' legal battles
By Patty Guerra - Modesto Bee
The city has spent nearly $50,000 to defend two City Council members accused of wrongdoing in a Stanislaus County civil grand jury report.
But with the money going toward an attorney suing the county and a high-profile public relations professional, some are questioning whether it's an appropriate use of taxpayer money.
City Manager Rod Butler said the City Council last year authorized Annette Smith and Dominic Farinha to get "specialized legal counsel" in response to the grand jury.
In the report issued in June, grand jurors said Smith should lose her seat for failing to disclose a financial relationship with a developer and voting to give him $27,000 without justification, among other alleged offenses. The report said Farinha, Smith and then-Mayor Becky Campo illegally ousted then-City Manager Cleve Morris. And grand jurors said Farinha misused his position on the council over a planned city inspection of his business and tried to use city staff in an effort to collect delinquent rent.
Patterson responded with a blistering letter by City Attorney Tom Hallinan, denying wrongdoing by current or former council members. The vote to allow Smith and Farinha to use city money for their respective defenses took place in closed session; Butler said all five council members were there but referred questions about the vote to Hallinan, who could not be reached for comment.
Smith's bills total about $10,000. She is suing the county over the grand jury's report; a federal judge decided the lawsuit should be dismissed but gave Smith 30 days to refile an amended complaint. She has said she plans to do so and is confident of her chances in court.
Farinha has spent about $37,000. According to the Patterson Irrigator, Farinha hired Bay Area attorney Tip Mazzucco. Farinha also hired Nathan Ballard, a former communications director for Gavin Newsom, when Newsom was San Francisco's mayor.
Ballard issued a statement from Farinha in June in which he denied any wrongdoing.
Mayor Luis Molina said he thinks Smith and Farinha have spent more than they should, and he wants some justification.
"It shouldn't have gone this far," he said. He couldn't elaborate on what happened during closed session, but said, "I'm only one vote."
Farinha said this week that "I feel the subject is moot." He declined to elaborate, referring instead to an opinion piece he published in the Irrigator.
That included the following: "It certainly was not the city's initial desire to utilize professional resources to combat what the grand jury callously threw in its face, but as it is with any complicated challenge or frivolous attack that a municipality is faced with, legal costs become a standard byproduct of defending itself. … If you were placed into our situation and walked in our shoes, you would be seeking the same resolve to rectify and remedy a wrong that had been done towards you."
Official doing the legwork
Smith said the costs are justified because "it's something we were accused of in our official capacity." She said she has kept fees down by doing much of the research for her court case.
"The way I look at it, I'm slandered," she said. "I've done nothing wrong."
Smith said it's not her goal to waste the city's money. "If at any time I feel that this is not winnable, I will walk away."
Butler said he reviews the bills as they come in, and if he comes across anything questionable he will run it by Hallinan. He said the council did not place a cap on the amount Smith and Farinha could spent.
Molina said he will ask to review any paperwork not considered attorney-client privilege.
"This will come up for discussion at some point," he said. Whether that will be in closed or open session has not been determined. "My particular question is, 'Was this determined to be a justifiable expense?' "
Bee staff writer Patty Guerra can be reached at pguerra@modbee.com or (209) 578-2343.
The city has spent nearly $50,000 to defend two City Council members accused of wrongdoing in a Stanislaus County civil grand jury report.
But with the money going toward an attorney suing the county and a high-profile public relations professional, some are questioning whether it's an appropriate use of taxpayer money.
City Manager Rod Butler said the City Council last year authorized Annette Smith and Dominic Farinha to get "specialized legal counsel" in response to the grand jury.
In the report issued in June, grand jurors said Smith should lose her seat for failing to disclose a financial relationship with a developer and voting to give him $27,000 without justification, among other alleged offenses. The report said Farinha, Smith and then-Mayor Becky Campo illegally ousted then-City Manager Cleve Morris. And grand jurors said Farinha misused his position on the council over a planned city inspection of his business and tried to use city staff in an effort to collect delinquent rent.
Patterson responded with a blistering letter by City Attorney Tom Hallinan, denying wrongdoing by current or former council members. The vote to allow Smith and Farinha to use city money for their respective defenses took place in closed session; Butler said all five council members were there but referred questions about the vote to Hallinan, who could not be reached for comment.
Smith's bills total about $10,000. She is suing the county over the grand jury's report; a federal judge decided the lawsuit should be dismissed but gave Smith 30 days to refile an amended complaint. She has said she plans to do so and is confident of her chances in court.
Farinha has spent about $37,000. According to the Patterson Irrigator, Farinha hired Bay Area attorney Tip Mazzucco. Farinha also hired Nathan Ballard, a former communications director for Gavin Newsom, when Newsom was San Francisco's mayor.
Ballard issued a statement from Farinha in June in which he denied any wrongdoing.
Mayor Luis Molina said he thinks Smith and Farinha have spent more than they should, and he wants some justification.
"It shouldn't have gone this far," he said. He couldn't elaborate on what happened during closed session, but said, "I'm only one vote."
Farinha said this week that "I feel the subject is moot." He declined to elaborate, referring instead to an opinion piece he published in the Irrigator.
That included the following: "It certainly was not the city's initial desire to utilize professional resources to combat what the grand jury callously threw in its face, but as it is with any complicated challenge or frivolous attack that a municipality is faced with, legal costs become a standard byproduct of defending itself. … If you were placed into our situation and walked in our shoes, you would be seeking the same resolve to rectify and remedy a wrong that had been done towards you."
Official doing the legwork
Smith said the costs are justified because "it's something we were accused of in our official capacity." She said she has kept fees down by doing much of the research for her court case.
"The way I look at it, I'm slandered," she said. "I've done nothing wrong."
Smith said it's not her goal to waste the city's money. "If at any time I feel that this is not winnable, I will walk away."
Butler said he reviews the bills as they come in, and if he comes across anything questionable he will run it by Hallinan. He said the council did not place a cap on the amount Smith and Farinha could spent.
Molina said he will ask to review any paperwork not considered attorney-client privilege.
"This will come up for discussion at some point," he said. Whether that will be in closed or open session has not been determined. "My particular question is, 'Was this determined to be a justifiable expense?' "
Bee staff writer Patty Guerra can be reached at pguerra@modbee.com or (209) 578-2343.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Grand jury blasts San Mateo County supes for not pursuing fire service deal with San Carlos
By Bonnie Eslinger - Daily News Staff Writer
Two San Mateo County supervisors last year blew a chance to save a lot of money by passing up on San Carlos' request to subcontract fire services through the county's agreement with the state forestry department, according to a civil grand jury report released Wednesday.
Such an arrangement with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire, could have reaped $650,000 per year for the county and saved San Carlos $1.4 million a year, the report noted.
"That seemed to be on a path that was somehow shortcut or short-circuited prematurely," grand jury Foreman Bruce MacMillan said about Adrienne Tissier and Carole Groom's failure to bring the request to the full board of supervisors. "Staff had indicated there was some significant dollars that could be saved by the city and the county and these days the county has challenges as far as its revenues are concerned. That's the twist we had on it, why was this discussion dropped somewhat abruptly?"
The fumble was intentional, San Carlos Mayor Andy Klein charged Wednesday. As members of the board's finance committee, Tissier and Groom buckled under pressure from the union representing the city's firefighters, he said. San Carlos subsequently dismantled its joint fire department with Belmont and created a hybrid department managed by Redwood City Fire Department command staff.
"They caved into the union and political pressure," Klein said. "They didn't want to upset their financial supporters -- the people who back their campaigns."
In its findings the grand jury did conclude there was "significant pressure from the local union to not consider Cal Fire as an outsource alternative for municipal fire protection," but did not accuse Tissier and Groom of yielding to the demands of the International Association of Firefighters, Local 2400.
MacMillan diplomatically sidestepped the question Wednesday.
"Clearly the unions, they have a job to do; part of that job is making it known that they don't want their individuals replaced or displaced or restructured. I understand that perfectly," he said. "Whether that influenced -- that's the one that's the tipping point -- someone will have to reach that conclusion themselves."
Groom insisted Wednesday that Local 2400's opposition to using Cal Fire employees in San Carlos did not influence the committee's decision to reject the proposal last February. She said she stands by the justification she gave then -- that cities can reduce costs by partnering with each other.
"That was the only reason," she said. "I was not pressured."
When asked about the potential revenue for the county, Groom said she did not remember being told about that benefit.
Tissier did not respond to an email and calls for comment.
San Carlos went directly to Cal Fire to negotiate a contract for fire services but the state agency backed off, explaining in a letter it feared there could be costly legal challenges because of "concern" from regional legislators and "significant opposition" from local labor organizations, the grand jury noted.
Cal Fire spokeswoman Janet Upton said although labor opposition was one concern, the agency's main reason for not taking on San Carlos was that the arrangement didn't financially pencil out. The county is in a better position to extend its existing fire services in unincorporated areas where stations already are staffed by state firefighters than into San Carlos, she said. It would have been too costly to set up a new department in the city for Cal Fire, she said. "We don't want to create a bunch of (service) islands,"
Cal Fire pays its employees less than city fire departments pay theirs, according to the grand jury.
Since the county's contract with Cal Fire expires on June 30, the supervisors should add a provision to the next contract allowing cities to subcontract for Cal Fire services when such an arrangement benefits both, the grand jury recommended.
Groom said she likely would not support such a proposal. Local 2400 president Tony Slimick did not respond to a request for comment on the report.
Email Bonnie Eslinger at beslinger@dailynewsgroup.com.
Two San Mateo County supervisors last year blew a chance to save a lot of money by passing up on San Carlos' request to subcontract fire services through the county's agreement with the state forestry department, according to a civil grand jury report released Wednesday.
Such an arrangement with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire, could have reaped $650,000 per year for the county and saved San Carlos $1.4 million a year, the report noted.
"That seemed to be on a path that was somehow shortcut or short-circuited prematurely," grand jury Foreman Bruce MacMillan said about Adrienne Tissier and Carole Groom's failure to bring the request to the full board of supervisors. "Staff had indicated there was some significant dollars that could be saved by the city and the county and these days the county has challenges as far as its revenues are concerned. That's the twist we had on it, why was this discussion dropped somewhat abruptly?"
The fumble was intentional, San Carlos Mayor Andy Klein charged Wednesday. As members of the board's finance committee, Tissier and Groom buckled under pressure from the union representing the city's firefighters, he said. San Carlos subsequently dismantled its joint fire department with Belmont and created a hybrid department managed by Redwood City Fire Department command staff.
"They caved into the union and political pressure," Klein said. "They didn't want to upset their financial supporters -- the people who back their campaigns."
In its findings the grand jury did conclude there was "significant pressure from the local union to not consider Cal Fire as an outsource alternative for municipal fire protection," but did not accuse Tissier and Groom of yielding to the demands of the International Association of Firefighters, Local 2400.
MacMillan diplomatically sidestepped the question Wednesday.
"Clearly the unions, they have a job to do; part of that job is making it known that they don't want their individuals replaced or displaced or restructured. I understand that perfectly," he said. "Whether that influenced -- that's the one that's the tipping point -- someone will have to reach that conclusion themselves."
Groom insisted Wednesday that Local 2400's opposition to using Cal Fire employees in San Carlos did not influence the committee's decision to reject the proposal last February. She said she stands by the justification she gave then -- that cities can reduce costs by partnering with each other.
"That was the only reason," she said. "I was not pressured."
When asked about the potential revenue for the county, Groom said she did not remember being told about that benefit.
Tissier did not respond to an email and calls for comment.
San Carlos went directly to Cal Fire to negotiate a contract for fire services but the state agency backed off, explaining in a letter it feared there could be costly legal challenges because of "concern" from regional legislators and "significant opposition" from local labor organizations, the grand jury noted.
Cal Fire spokeswoman Janet Upton said although labor opposition was one concern, the agency's main reason for not taking on San Carlos was that the arrangement didn't financially pencil out. The county is in a better position to extend its existing fire services in unincorporated areas where stations already are staffed by state firefighters than into San Carlos, she said. It would have been too costly to set up a new department in the city for Cal Fire, she said. "We don't want to create a bunch of (service) islands,"
Cal Fire pays its employees less than city fire departments pay theirs, according to the grand jury.
Since the county's contract with Cal Fire expires on June 30, the supervisors should add a provision to the next contract allowing cities to subcontract for Cal Fire services when such an arrangement benefits both, the grand jury recommended.
Groom said she likely would not support such a proposal. Local 2400 president Tony Slimick did not respond to a request for comment on the report.
Email Bonnie Eslinger at beslinger@dailynewsgroup.com.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
The Sacramento Bee: Natomas Unified School District to see partial refund for inflated land deal
Five years after Natomas Unified School District bought 41 acres of farmland for what school officials later conceded was an inflated price, the district is starting to see a portion of its money refunded.
On Monday, Natomas Unified officials confirmed that they had reached settlement with two different parties in the land deal. They are still seeking money from the original seller – a partnership of developer Angelo K. Tsakopoulos and Woodside Homes – and the real estate broker, Mark Skreden.
Last week, attorney Martin Steiner and the law firm where he works, Hefner, Stark & Marois, LLP, agreed to pay $2.6 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the district, said interim Superintendent Walt Hanline.
Steiner, who was hired by the district to oversee legal aspects of the $13.3 million purchase, revealed three months after escrow closed that he had a conflict of interest, according to a Sacramento grand jury report released in 2009.
The Bee reported in 2008 that Steiner had represented Tsakopoulos in other transactions but hadn't obtained a written waiver from the school board or superintendent acknowledging they had been briefed about the potential conflict.
Steiner did not return calls from The Bee on Monday.
"He stepped forward to do the right thing," Hanline said. "I hope everyone else does, too."
While Skreden is named in the lawsuit, a complaint filed by the district with the California Department of Real Estate resulted in no disciplinary action against the broker.
"All I can tell you is I have been exonerated by the DRE," Skreden told The Bee on Monday.
He declined to discuss the lawsuit on the advice of his attorney.
West Lakeside LLC, a partnership that included Woodside Homes and was managed by Tsakopoulos, also is named in the suit.
Louis A. Gonzalez, an attorney for the company, wrote The Bee in an email Monday that West Lakeside "has the option, which it is evaluating, to file a motion objecting to the settlement between the district and Marty Steiner."
Gonzalez said West Lakeside isn't part of the Steiner settlement and doesn't have the option to join it.
Natomas Unified confirmed Monday it received a $350,000 settlement from appraiser Christopher Ferguson in October, Hanline said.
A Bee investigation in 2007 cited experts who said that appraisals the district relied on for the land deal overvalued the property by millions of dollars.
On Monday, the superintendent said the land is actually worth between $4.3 million and $8.6 million. He said the district is looking for refunds totaling at least $5 million from the remaining defendants in the lawsuit.
"I'm optimistic particularly that Tsakopoulos will come forward and we can reach a settlement," Hanline said. "Everyone recognizes it is a bad situation for everyone and we need to move forward."
Hanline said it is best for the school district to settle instead of push on to court. "If we win (in court), Tsakopoulos will receive the land back," he said. "We will receive a credit of $13 million and we will get in line with the debts that are owed from a bankrupt company."
Woodside Homes filed for Chapter 11 protection in 2008.
Hanline said that any money won in the settlements or in court will go back into the district's construction fund.
The lawsuit followed two years of community outrage over the land deal. The suit was filed after a grand jury report in May 2009 alleged that the district had paid six times the value of the land and that then-Superintendent Steve Farrar didn't oversee the purchase properly. Farrar has since retired.
The district had planned to build a bioscience magnet school on the site. Nothing can be built on it now because of a moratorium on building in the flood zone, Hanline said.
The superintendent said that the district has already paid about $700,000 from its construction fund for attorneys' fees related to the lawsuit.
The district expects to receive the settlement check from Steiner in mid-March.
"I'm hopeful we can get closure on this prior to my leaving the district June 30," Hanline said of the lawsuit.
By Diana Lambert
dlambert@sacbee.com
Published: Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2012 - 12:00 am | Page 1B
On Monday, Natomas Unified officials confirmed that they had reached settlement with two different parties in the land deal. They are still seeking money from the original seller – a partnership of developer Angelo K. Tsakopoulos and Woodside Homes – and the real estate broker, Mark Skreden.
Last week, attorney Martin Steiner and the law firm where he works, Hefner, Stark & Marois, LLP, agreed to pay $2.6 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the district, said interim Superintendent Walt Hanline.
Steiner, who was hired by the district to oversee legal aspects of the $13.3 million purchase, revealed three months after escrow closed that he had a conflict of interest, according to a Sacramento grand jury report released in 2009.
The Bee reported in 2008 that Steiner had represented Tsakopoulos in other transactions but hadn't obtained a written waiver from the school board or superintendent acknowledging they had been briefed about the potential conflict.
Steiner did not return calls from The Bee on Monday.
"He stepped forward to do the right thing," Hanline said. "I hope everyone else does, too."
While Skreden is named in the lawsuit, a complaint filed by the district with the California Department of Real Estate resulted in no disciplinary action against the broker.
"All I can tell you is I have been exonerated by the DRE," Skreden told The Bee on Monday.
He declined to discuss the lawsuit on the advice of his attorney.
West Lakeside LLC, a partnership that included Woodside Homes and was managed by Tsakopoulos, also is named in the suit.
Louis A. Gonzalez, an attorney for the company, wrote The Bee in an email Monday that West Lakeside "has the option, which it is evaluating, to file a motion objecting to the settlement between the district and Marty Steiner."
Gonzalez said West Lakeside isn't part of the Steiner settlement and doesn't have the option to join it.
Natomas Unified confirmed Monday it received a $350,000 settlement from appraiser Christopher Ferguson in October, Hanline said.
A Bee investigation in 2007 cited experts who said that appraisals the district relied on for the land deal overvalued the property by millions of dollars.
On Monday, the superintendent said the land is actually worth between $4.3 million and $8.6 million. He said the district is looking for refunds totaling at least $5 million from the remaining defendants in the lawsuit.
"I'm optimistic particularly that Tsakopoulos will come forward and we can reach a settlement," Hanline said. "Everyone recognizes it is a bad situation for everyone and we need to move forward."
Hanline said it is best for the school district to settle instead of push on to court. "If we win (in court), Tsakopoulos will receive the land back," he said. "We will receive a credit of $13 million and we will get in line with the debts that are owed from a bankrupt company."
Woodside Homes filed for Chapter 11 protection in 2008.
Hanline said that any money won in the settlements or in court will go back into the district's construction fund.
The lawsuit followed two years of community outrage over the land deal. The suit was filed after a grand jury report in May 2009 alleged that the district had paid six times the value of the land and that then-Superintendent Steve Farrar didn't oversee the purchase properly. Farrar has since retired.
The district had planned to build a bioscience magnet school on the site. Nothing can be built on it now because of a moratorium on building in the flood zone, Hanline said.
The superintendent said that the district has already paid about $700,000 from its construction fund for attorneys' fees related to the lawsuit.
The district expects to receive the settlement check from Steiner in mid-March.
"I'm hopeful we can get closure on this prior to my leaving the district June 30," Hanline said of the lawsuit.
By Diana Lambert
dlambert@sacbee.com
Published: Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2012 - 12:00 am | Page 1B
Monday, February 13, 2012
CalWatchdog.com - NEW: Politician Spends Excessively!
Katy Grimes:
Alert the media! A Sacramento politician spent record amounts of money while a county supervisor.
And now, that county supervisor is in the State Assembly.
An exposé done by the Sacramento Bee over the weekend is only two years late; this information might have been helpful for voters in November 2010, when they were trying to decide whether or not to elect Roger Dickinson, a Democrat, to the 9th Assembly district.
“In his last 30 months as a Sacramento County supervisor, Roger Dickinson spent almost $70,000 in county funds on expenses – nearly as much as the county’s other four supervisors combined” the Bee reported.
“Dickinson, now a state assemblyman, went on 16 taxpayer-funded trips, bought almost $4,000 worth of furniture and paid about $30,000 to a consultant for work on a youth violence committee, records show.”
I knew what he was. I complained loudly about his behavior when I wrote a weekly column for the Sacramento Union. My stories focused on what he had been doing as county supervisor.
Sports Arena Part l
“Mr. Dickinson most recently made a name for himself with his flaccid handling of the proposed Sacramento Sports Arena” I wrote in September 2007. Despite Sacramento Voters soundly defeating initiatives Measures Q and R which would have raised taxes and spent the money on a sports arena, Dickinson continued to push like crazy to build an arena.
The back room deal was put together by Dickinson, and Senator Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. They hurried Measures Q and R onto the ballot, leaving voters only a few days to vote on the measures which were missing crucial information. Dickinson continued withholding the information until two courts overruled him. But the measures failed anyway.
Steinberg and Dickinson also tried to get the measures passed by 50 percent simple majority vote instead of the two-thirds vote required for tax measures. Already strapped by county taxes, taxpayers smelled a rat and told arena supporters to pay for their own sports complex.
The Sacramento Grand Jury slammed City and County Sacramento officials in a scathing report about public officials’ attempts in Sacramento to build a sports facility with public money, and asked “Have the City and County deceived their citizens regarding their dealings with the Kings?” They wrote, “Sacramento County breached the good faith of honest and open communications by placing Measures Q and R on the ballot asserting a deal which did not exist.”
Library Board
Dickinson was Chairman of the Sacramento Library Board of Directors when $800,000 was stolen by three employees in an over-billing and kickback scheme. In 2008, the Sacramento Grand Jury investigated and found gross mismanagement and financial conflicts of interest within the Sacramento Public Library Authority. The Grand Jury skewered the library’s board, of which Dickinson was chairman, for not overseeing the management, as well as the library’s finances.
But the real eye-opener was that despite the Grand Jury findings of gross mismanagement, even after the library director and two library officials were charged with felonies in the billing scandal, Dickinson stubbornly stood by the library director — after the Grand Jury recommended that she step down.
Grand Jury Get-Even
In what many have said is a vindictive move, Dickinson proposed and passed a bill last year that will neuter the very effective California’s Grand Jury system, which expose and prosecute government corruption, and root out waste and abuses of power by elected officials, boards and commissions. It is highly questionable how government officials can alter the Grand Jury process, when they are often the subjects of the investigations.
“Underhanded, sneaky behavior should not be rewarded with higher office,” I wrote in 2007. And I received a great deal of feedback from angry Sacramento residents about Dickinson’s arrogant behavior. Had they only know the extent of it, we might not be calling him “Assemblyman.”
FEB. 13, 2012
Alert the media! A Sacramento politician spent record amounts of money while a county supervisor.
And now, that county supervisor is in the State Assembly.
An exposé done by the Sacramento Bee over the weekend is only two years late; this information might have been helpful for voters in November 2010, when they were trying to decide whether or not to elect Roger Dickinson, a Democrat, to the 9th Assembly district.
“In his last 30 months as a Sacramento County supervisor, Roger Dickinson spent almost $70,000 in county funds on expenses – nearly as much as the county’s other four supervisors combined” the Bee reported.
“Dickinson, now a state assemblyman, went on 16 taxpayer-funded trips, bought almost $4,000 worth of furniture and paid about $30,000 to a consultant for work on a youth violence committee, records show.”
I knew what he was. I complained loudly about his behavior when I wrote a weekly column for the Sacramento Union. My stories focused on what he had been doing as county supervisor.
Sports Arena Part l
“Mr. Dickinson most recently made a name for himself with his flaccid handling of the proposed Sacramento Sports Arena” I wrote in September 2007. Despite Sacramento Voters soundly defeating initiatives Measures Q and R which would have raised taxes and spent the money on a sports arena, Dickinson continued to push like crazy to build an arena.
The back room deal was put together by Dickinson, and Senator Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. They hurried Measures Q and R onto the ballot, leaving voters only a few days to vote on the measures which were missing crucial information. Dickinson continued withholding the information until two courts overruled him. But the measures failed anyway.
Steinberg and Dickinson also tried to get the measures passed by 50 percent simple majority vote instead of the two-thirds vote required for tax measures. Already strapped by county taxes, taxpayers smelled a rat and told arena supporters to pay for their own sports complex.
The Sacramento Grand Jury slammed City and County Sacramento officials in a scathing report about public officials’ attempts in Sacramento to build a sports facility with public money, and asked “Have the City and County deceived their citizens regarding their dealings with the Kings?” They wrote, “Sacramento County breached the good faith of honest and open communications by placing Measures Q and R on the ballot asserting a deal which did not exist.”
Library Board
Dickinson was Chairman of the Sacramento Library Board of Directors when $800,000 was stolen by three employees in an over-billing and kickback scheme. In 2008, the Sacramento Grand Jury investigated and found gross mismanagement and financial conflicts of interest within the Sacramento Public Library Authority. The Grand Jury skewered the library’s board, of which Dickinson was chairman, for not overseeing the management, as well as the library’s finances.
But the real eye-opener was that despite the Grand Jury findings of gross mismanagement, even after the library director and two library officials were charged with felonies in the billing scandal, Dickinson stubbornly stood by the library director — after the Grand Jury recommended that she step down.
Grand Jury Get-Even
In what many have said is a vindictive move, Dickinson proposed and passed a bill last year that will neuter the very effective California’s Grand Jury system, which expose and prosecute government corruption, and root out waste and abuses of power by elected officials, boards and commissions. It is highly questionable how government officials can alter the Grand Jury process, when they are often the subjects of the investigations.
“Underhanded, sneaky behavior should not be rewarded with higher office,” I wrote in 2007. And I received a great deal of feedback from angry Sacramento residents about Dickinson’s arrogant behavior. Had they only know the extent of it, we might not be calling him “Assemblyman.”
FEB. 13, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)