Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Audrey Lucille Lynberg

This obituary is posted to honor Audrey Lynberg, one of CGJA’s founders and the long-time advocate for the Los Angeles Chapter, CGJA’s first chapter.

Audrey Lucille Lynberg of West Covina passed away on August 24, 2020 at the age of 91. She was born in Maurice, Iowa and was one of seven children to Florence and Charles Mieras. Upon graduation from Maurice Public Schools, she attended the Methodist School of Nursing in Sioux City, and received her degree as a Registered Nurse in 1949. Following graduation, Audrey began her nursing career as a surgical nurse at the Methodist School of Nursing. Soon thereafter, Audrey met Charles Lynberg.   A year later, they married and moved to Iowa City where he attended the University of Iowa and she continued her career at the University Hospital and the Veteran's Hospital. After relocating to California in the San Gabriel Valley, she took surgery call at Hartland Hospital for three years.  During her 34-year marriage to Charles they had three children, Carole, Chris and Laura. In 1985 she continued her education at Azusa Pacific University and earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology followed by a Master of Arts degree in Sociology an emphasis in Nonprofits at 62 years of age.

Throughout her life, Audrey led a full life of professional and community service. After her divorce she filled her life by servicing on several boards of directors and coordinating several political campaigns as she was interested in the political issues. In recognition of her efforts, in 2011 she was recognized by the 32nd Congressional District with the Women of Distinction Award.  While at APU, Audrey helped to develop the Children and Family Center Program at Azusa Pacific, which continues to provide training for graduate students as a service to families in the community. Audrey has served as President for the YWCA, in which she helped  develop the Wings Shelter Program and raised funds for the San Gabriel Valley Domestic Violence Program. In addition, Audrey served as a member of the Board of Directors of the Coalition for Victims Rights. Having been a member of the Los Angeles Grand Jury, Audrey helped develop a training program for newly selected grand jurors with the California Grand Jurors Organization and La Verne College of Law. For  her outstanding service, Audrey received the Rolando award from the California Grand Juror's Association. Audrey's organizational skills impacted all her volunteer work, including the Covina United Methodist Church, the Chamber of Commerce, the 2100 Club, Citrus Valley Health Partners, her homeowners' association and numerous political campaigns. Audrey was also a long-time member of Covina United Methodist Church where she participated in the ten-member bell choir and sang in the choir.

Audrey is preceded in death by her parents, Florence and Charles Mieras; her brothers, Howard and Jason; and her sisters, Helen and Marcia. Audrey is survived by two sisters, Nellie Derby and Rebecca Sirois; her children Carole (Michael) Magaldi, Christopher (Angela) Lynberg, Laura (Guy) Webster; grandchildren Michelle Magaldi, Anna (John) Murphy, Christina (Dan) Rademaker, Shannon (Eric)Lynberg, Craig Lynberg, Madison and Nicholas Webster; great-grandchildren Royce and Lily Rademaker; and many nieces and nephews.

A private memorial service was held for the immediate family officiated by the Reverend David Jamir.  A graveside service will take place at the family cemetery in Maurice, Iowa, in June 2021.  In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to Covina United Methodist Church, San Gabriel Valley YWCA, Azusa Pacific University, or the California Grand Jurors’ Association.

DAS, STEVE & SUPES TO [Santa Barbara] GRAND JURY ON POT & ETHICS REFORM: NO WAY, NO HOW, NOT NOW, NOT EVER

Das, Steve & Supes to SB Grand Jury on Pot & Ethics Reform: No Way, No How, Not Now, Not Ever

The Board of Supervisors could have saved their staff lawyers time and trouble in the drafting of their disgraceful and disrespectful response to the Grand Jury’s bombshell report on the county’s cannabis ordinance - by simply publishing the five-word message embedded within its 11 pages:

Go piss up a rope.

As a practical matter, that is the bottom line of the supervisors' response: anyone familiar with the controversy will recognize it as little more than a political rant by pot industry puppets Das Williams and Steve Lavagnino, tarted up in a 3,054-word bouquet of legalese in defense of a local brand of stuff-it-down-their throats power politics worthy of Mitch McConnell.

Last Monday, the supervisors approved their formal response to the landmark report by the civil Grand Jury, which conscientiously, painstakingly and responsibly catalogued and detailed the reckless and sleazy process, led by Supervisors Williams and Lavagnino, by which legal cannabis cultivation was implanted in the county.

As the jury detailed, the Doobie Brothers, amid an atmosphere of secrecy, rammed through a troubled new law, which managed simultaneously to inflict damage to the health and quality of life for many residents, disrupt the long-established wine and avocado industries, desecrate the integrity of creditable land use processes and ignite bitter and ongoing political division and lawsuits across the county.

Alone among the board, only the resolute Supervisor Joan Hartmann uttered a word of concern or care about the conflicts, mess and muddle brought about by the pot ordinance (though Peter Adam noted that he had cast many votes in opposition, which reflect concerns raised by the jury).

The board's formal, written response in defense of the Das-Steve Pot Patronage and Protectorship Act, however, not only treats the good citizens of the Grand Jury with utter contempt but also categorically refuses to acknowledge -- let alone take responsibility for -- the myriad of problems the legislation continues to cause.

L'etat c'est moi.

DENY, DEFLECT, DISMISS.

In flatly rejecting 18 of 19 Grand Jury recommendations for action, the supervisors' philipic on 10 different points proclaims, "This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not warranted."

To be sure, the document employs occasional linguistic variations, perhaps for stylistic reasons: “This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not reasonable," the supes assert seven times, while applying the phrase, "This recommendation will not be implemented as it is not necessary," once.

This deny-deny-deny strategy mirrors how Das dealt with the cannabis scandal while running for re-election a few months back, when he bumptiously and brazenly spurned repeated invitations from voters and debate moderators to express even a trace of regret or remorse for his botched legislative handiwork.

By failing to acknowledge the personal and economic pain and suffering of people whose day-to-day lives have been afflicted by the politically-connected cannabis industry, heavily populated with his personal pals and donors, Das has ceded any moral authority attendant to his elected perch, by making clear that he governs on behalf of his supporters and damn the rest.

The President of the Red States of America, would be proud.

NOT WARRANTED!

Here is a look at how the supervisors dismissed and derided a few of the Grand Jury's recommendations for cleaning up the kinds of shady political dealings that defined the passage of the cannabis ordinance:

SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCERS.

Pointing to the "unfettered access" pot industry lobbyists and operatives had to Das and Steve during the preparation of the ordinance, the jury recommended that supervisors in the future "publicly disclose all access granted to lobbying individuals or groups” when they have business before the board.

"Not warranted," declared the supes.

Why? Basically because they don’t have to: Determined to maintain the cozy status quo at the county, the board invoked a 1991 state supreme court ruling in which then-Governor Pete Wilson fought off efforts by the L.A. Times to review his daily calendars, to determine exactly with whom he was meeting in devising key policies.

Wilson, then soon to embark on his immigrant-bashing Prop. 187 crusade, did not have to disclose his meetings, the court ruled, because it would have "a chilling effect" on deliberations.

Ha! No kidding. Nice company, Das.

ETHICS IN POLITICS.

The Grand Jury recommended the supervisors establish an “independent Ethics Commission with oversight over the board,” to prevent a repeat of the unsavory dealings that produced the pot law, a move that has been taken by many other counties, including Ventura, San Francisco and Los Angeles, to ensure sunshine in local government activity.

"Not warranted," said the supes.

Why? Their answer claims there simply is no need for a local ethics watchdog -- because anyone who perceives a problem of conflict of interest or corruption amid their transactional behavior need merely direct their complaints to Sacramento, where they can take the matter up with California's Fair Political Practices Commission.

And hey, don't forget to call if and when you penetrate that state government bureaucracy.

PAY-TO-PLAY.

The jury recommended that supervisors “publicly disclose receipt of campaign contributions from donors who have matters pending a decision by the board.”

"Not warranted," adjudged the supes, well-qualified to attest to their own integrity.

Why? This one really takes the cake:

When asked about the need for local political reform during his campaign, Das never tired of deflecting the question by shedding crocodile tears and bemoaning the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous Citizens United decision, beating his breast about how it has corrupted our political system by flooding it with cash.

Now comes Das and the board, per Page 11 of the taxpayer-financed response to the Grand Jury, to declare shamelessly that the jury's campaign contribution reform recommendation would “curtail contributors' constitutional rights”; citing a 1980 state court decision, the document adds that “Public policy strongly encourages the giving and receiving of campaign contributions.”

Now there’s the understatement of the year.

edhat Santa Barbara
By Jerry Roberts of Newsmakers
September 28, 2020

 

Saturday, September 26, 2020

Yolo County Grand Jury releases report

Investigations into school safety and election security included

The Yolo County Grand Jury released a finalized report on Thursday, detailing its investigations into areas such as school safety and election security.

The Yolo County Grand Jury is made up of 19 citizens selected by the Superior Court who serve one-year terms. The purpose of the Grand Jury is to act as a citizen watchdog to review, investigate complaints about local government, make annual inquiries into the condition and management of public jails, and to report its findings and recommendations to Yolo County residents.

Due to COVID-19, the 2019-2020 Yolo County Grand Jury term was extended from July 2020 to Dec. 31, 2020 to allow this body enough time to complete the investigations while working remotely since March.

On Thursday, the 2019-2020 Yolo County Grand Jury released its Final Consolidated Report. The report contains six investigative reports and the annual impact analysis titled, “Striving to Make a Difference: Responses to the 2018-2019 Yolo County Grand Jury Report.”

The analysis looks at county and local government responses to the investigative reports published by the Grand Jury last year. The 2019-2020 individual reports contain a total of 53 findings and 30 recommendations.

“In these reports, the 2019-2020 Yolo County Grand Jury made several recommendations to improve the services provided by Yolo County. The potential benefits of the Grand Jury’s recommendations demonstrate the value of its work as an agent for positive change,” said Leslie Field, foreperson of the 2019-2020 Yolo County Grand Jury. “We are pleased to provide these reports to the public.”

Monitoring Compliance with 2017-2018 Yolo County Grand Jury Recommendations

The 2017-2018 Yolo County Grand Jury published six investigative reports, with a combined total of 30 findings and 26 recommendations. The six investigative reports were:

  • Inmate Visitation Policy at the Monroe Detention Center
  • Juvenile Detention Facility Investigation
  • Follow-up: Elections Office Indiscretions and Culpability
  • Improving the Yolo County Libraries and Archives
  • The Looming Crisis of City Pension and Retirement Medical Costs
  • Reporting and Analysis of Child Welfare Statistics

The 2019-2020 Grand Jury followed up on seven of the 26 recommendations to assess their implementation status. Representative and important recommendations were selected from each of the investigative reports, except the Juvenile Detention Facility Investigation, since aspects of this facility were also investigated by the 2018-2019 Grand Jury.

Those seven recommendations (in order of appearance in the original report) are:

  • Funding for and implementation of an online system for making visiting appointments at the Yolo County Monroe Detention Center;
  • Funding for and implementation of a video visiting system at the Yolo County Monroe Detention Center;
  • The Elections Office should maintain documentation of all training classes and individual instruction that includes, at minimum: signatures of individuals attending with date and topic covered;
  • Provide a social worker to assist Yolo County Library staff in dealing with homeless, substance-abusing, and mentally ill individuals and families;
  • Post a code of appropriate behavior for library patrons;
  • Create a simple statistical template and/or graph that shows three-year past (actual) and projected (look back, look forward) pension costs and liabilities and their impact on city budgets;
  • The Child, Youth and Family Branch of the Yolo County Health and Human Services Agency should submit a proposal to the Board of Supervisors for a continuous quality improvement unit.

This investigation was undertaken to determine the progress made in response to these previous Grand Jury recommendations and to provide a public update on that progress. The 2019-2020 Grand Jury found that agencies have implemented, or are in the process of implementing, all seven recommendations.

For recommendations that have not been fully implemented, the 2019-2020 Grand Jury recommends further updates from the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office. The Grand Jury also recommends that the City of West Sacramento and City of Woodland post budget and/or retiree medical and pension costs on their websites.

The Final Consolidated Report containing all the complete individual reports is posted on the Grand Jury’s website.

Daily Democrat
By WOODLAND DAILY DEMOCRAT
September 24, 2020 

[Contra Costa County] Judge sets Kramer trial for Oct. 19

Blog note: This article refers to an accusation filed by the Contra Costa Grand Jury

 

MARTINEZ >> Less than three weeks before the Nov. 3 election in which he is running for a seat on the Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County Assessor Gus Kramer must go to trial to face civil "corrupt or willful misconduct" charges, a judge has ruled.

In a case that has seen more than a year of legal delays, Superior Court Judge John Cope decided Friday to allow a grand jury's formal accusation against Kramer to proceed to a jury trial on Oct. 19.

Before doing so, he denied a motion by Kramer's defense attorneys, Michael Rains and Nicole Pifari, to "set aside" the accusation.

Rains and Pifari had argued that the Contra Costa civil grand jury used "inadmissible evidence" - what they called hearsay - in determining to file an accusation to remove Kramer from office. The accusation says that between 2013 and 2018, Kramer made sexual comments multiple times to female employees in his department and once made a racist slur to a worker.

Even if the court were to accept the witnesses' allegations as true, Rains and Pifar argued, the alleged harassment as witnesses described it was "not pervasive" and they were not "subjectively" harmed. At most, some were made "uncomfortable," the attorneys said.

Rains had also argued that the grand jury process itself was mishandled, noting there was no evidence the jury had received proper instruction in what to look for, what questions to ask and what information to gather to establish whether Kramer had indeed created a hostile work environment or engaged in willful misconduct.

Rains also argued that the grand jury was used as a political pawn by the Board of Supervisors. In late 2018, the board voted to censure Kramer and refer the matter to the grand jury after an independent inve st igat or sust a ined findings that he likely had made inappropriate sexual comments to women employees.

Kramer has multiple times since then denied any wrongdoing, claiming that the allegations are fabricated and part of a campaign against him.

Cope dismissed Rains' arguments about the jury process, noting that "The details show to this court that the grand jurors understood the legal instructions and specifically made their factual findings in the accusation." He went on to say it was not his role in the hearing to weigh how egregious Kramer's conduct was after the grand jury made its accusation.

Rather, "My job is to establish whether there is sufficient legal evidence to support the grand jur y's decision," Cope explained. "The jury found that in each of those instances - and overall - that the harassing conduct was pervasive. This court, by the standard of legal sufficiency, is finding that there is legally sufficient evidence to support the accusations in this case." "This is a disappointing spectacle of justice," Rains said in an interview after the hearing. "There is no justice the way this is played out." Rains railed against the judge's decision to not allow him to explore on the record his contention that the jury destroyed documents related to witness testimony.

"Nobody should be subjected to removal from public office when important evidence that would exonerate him is being destroyed," Rains said.

"Twelve grand jurors ret ur ned this a ccusation," Cope pointed out to Rains during the hearing. "What you're going to be left to argue is that all 12 of them were politically biased or improperly motivated. That's attacking an institution without any evidence. I'm not going to allow that to happen, frankly.

"There are ways to litigate whether it's right or wrong, and that's at a trial." Kramer's case has stretched across multiple hearings since the accusations were first filed in June 2019. Both the District Attorney's Office and Rains initially filed motions to remove Contra Costa County prosecutors from the case and hand it over to the state Attorney General's office, but Superior Court Judge Theresa Canepa denied them.

Canepa subsequently bowed out of the case, citing time constraints, and Charles "Ben" Burch temporarily took over, overseeing a series of motions and scheduling the trial to begin in January 2020. But the case then went to Cope when Burch took on a new assignment within the court.

Even motion hearings scheduled for earlier this month were delayed - first because of a homicide trial Cope was overseeing, and then because an attorney was ill. Now, the trial can commence on Oct. 19.

It's unclear how long the trial will take, but Cope estimated it would stretch over three weeks - several days past the Nov. 3 election in which Kramer is running against District 5 Supervisor Federal Glover. The race is actually a runoff from the March election, when Glover failed to secure the needed majority vote to win outright against Kramer and fellow contender Sean Trambley.

Regardless of the trial's outcome, Kramer could take the supervisor seat if he wins. While the case is being prosecuted by the District Attorney's Office in much the same way as a criminal trial, the consequences do not involve jail time or any felony or misdemeanor convictions. The only repercussion would be Kramer's removal from his position as county assessor. He has been reelected as the assessor multiple times since first winning the seat in 1994.

The process of removing municipal and county elected officials from office through a grand jury accusation alleging "corrupt or willful misconduct" is rarely used, but it is permitted by a 1943 state law. A unanimous jury verdict is needed to remove the official, who can then appeal.

East Bay Times
Annie Sciacca
September 26, 2020

 

Thursday, September 24, 2020

Santa Barbara Supervisors Reject [Santa Barbara County] Grand Jury’s Cannabis Report

Board Disputes 10 Critical Findings, and Dismisses 17 Recommendations

 

Rarely has the Santa Barbara Grand Jury issued so scathing a report as the one released this summer about the open embrace given to the cannabis industry by elected officials throughout Santa Barbara county government. In biting detail, the report castigated the board of supervisors — two in particular — for allowing cannabis industry lobbyists such “unfettered access” that the jury recommended creating an ethics commission with new ethics rules that would require — among other things — supervisors receiving campaign donations from industry representatives to recuse themselves from voting on donors’ projects.

Though less sharp in tone and shorter in length, the supervisors returned the favor this Tuesday, approving an official response to the Grand Jury that disagreed either “wholly” or “partially” with 10 of the Grand Jury’s 12 findings and dismissed 17 of the Grand Jury’s 18 remedial recommendations as either “not warranted,” “not reasonable,” or “not needed.” Translated into more affirmative lingo, the supervisors report agreed with just two of the grand jury’s findings and agreed to implement just one of its recommendations.

Perhaps, it’s just that cannabis — like water and whiskey — is destined to be forever fought over — at least in Santa Barbara County, which has emerged as one of the hottest epicenters of legal marijuana production in all California.

Not helping matters is the legally stilted lingo which by law the supervisors must deploy when responding to any and all grand jury reports.

In a nutshell, the Grand Jury concluded that the county supervisors — in their haste to legalize a brand new industry that promised untold millions in tax revenues — sold out the county’s normal environmental review process, short- circuited public access to the deliberative process, took industry donations, played footsie with industry lobbyists, and crafted an ordinance that relied on the honor system for cannabis operators to tell the truth and comply with county regulations. The victims in all this, according to the Grand Jury, are the olfactory sensibilities of county residents in town and country who can’t abide the smell of alarmed skunks emanating from greenhouse and field.

Speaking against these charges was county administrator Barney Melekian and Planning Czar Lisa Plowman. The county was forced to craft a complicated new regulatory apparatus in short order, according to Melekian. “All of us were maneuvering in the fog,” he said.  Plowman noted that the county held no less than 60 open public hearings on the new ordinance.

Melekian insisted there was no lax enforcement of a rogue industry, saying that the Sheriff’s Office conducted 72 enforcement actions against cannabis
growers suspected of growing illegally, 12 against operators who provided
the county false information to obtain temporary licenses, and 58 who had no licenses at all. Seized in these raids were 89,483 pounds of dried processed cannabis and 1.4 million plants worth $339 million.

County Counsel Mike Ghizzoni noted that because campaign donations are protected as free speech, supervisors could not be forced to recuse themselves from votes relating to their donors. The county, he added, already has a code of ethics, and the state’s Political Reform Act already requires all campaign donations be reported.

Supervisor Steve Lavagnino said, “Everybody has access. Anybody can come and talk to me.” He added, “I talk to both sides, and at some point I have to make a tough call.” People, he said, should not confuse policy disagreements with corruption.

Williams acknowledged that odor control remains a problem and suggested the County Counsel’s Office could more vigorously pursue lawsuits against offenders. But he stressed all the ways the supervisors have, in fact, increased the regulatory restrictions on the new industry.

Supervisor Gregg Hart expressed disappointment the Grand Jury failed to highlight many of the additional zoning and regulatory safeguards the supervisors have adopted since the initial ordinance was adopted.

Supervisor Peter Adam, normally more loquacious, declined to weigh in, saying he voted against all the measures that aroused the suspicion of the Grand Jury.

Only Supervisor Joan Hartmann expressed concern about problems highlighted by the Grand Jury report. Many operators, she stated, have expanded well beyond the size of what they claimed they were growing in2016. “When somebody does that, you simply don’t bless it with a permit,” she stated. You say there’s some kind of consequence.” The county, she said, has yet to do that.

Seven members of the public addressed the supervisors about the report. Liz Rogan thanked them for responding “to facts not emotion.” But Renee O’Neill, an outspoken critic of the industry who lives in Tepusquet Canyon, said, “There appears to be no acknowledgment of making mistakes and or a demonstration of willingness to remedy problems that were created by developing ‘cart-before-the-horse, slipshod, loophole’ cannabis regulations.”

 

Santa Barbara Independent
By Nick Welsh
 September 23, 2020


Wednesday, September 23, 2020

Mendocino County Grand Jury reports on Parlin Fork Fire Crew Camp

Conservation camp found to be ‘well-managed’

The Grand Jury, a citizen organization established by California law to review and investigate the government of a county and its cities, has its roots in 12th century England and was brought to America in 1635.

The Grand Jury has been part of the California Constitution since statehood in 1850 and the Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury operates under a constitutional mandate that calls for a GJ in every county.

It is Mendocino County’s only independent watchdog of government agencies and services, and is composed of 19 citizen volunteers who investigate and monitor the performance of county, city and local governing entities, including special districts.

Empowered by the judicial system, the Civil Grand Jury makes recommendations to improve local government and is independent of administrators, politicians and legislators.

On Feb. 19, the Mendocino County 2019-2020 Civil Grand Jury conducted a site visit to Parlin Fork Conservation District #6 in Jackson State Demonstration Forest on Highway 20.

Parlin Fork is part of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and is overseen by correctional officers and operated in conjunction with Cal Fire. Established in 1949, it is the oldest conservation camp in Northern California and the second oldest of the state’s 47 camps.

The primary goal of the camp is rehabilitation with a secondary goal of inmates serving the community, contributing to events including the Fort Bragg Salmon Barbeque and the Willits Thanksgiving dinner at the Senior Center.

Low risk inmates, who must be physically fit, are trained for firefighting at the CDCR in Susanville, California, for two months before being sent to the camp. Their remaining sentence cannot exceed five years and working in the camp can reduce their sentence.

Camp capacity is 100 and at the time of the GJ’s visit there were 85 inmates who made up seven crews with up to 15 per crew.

Inmates clear brush and maintain the Jackson State Demonstration Forest and respond to disasters, including fires (at $2 per hour), nearby accidents, floods and earthquakes.

On the day of the GJ’s visit, while they toured the camp and interviewed staff from CDCR and Cal Fire, crews were clearing brush, assisting in making fire trails and trimming trees in the western hills in the city of Ukiah.

Reports from the GJ’s interview state there has been a reduction of inmates with trade skills such as plumbers, electricians, carpenters and mechanics and some do not possess basic life skills upon arrival at the camp.

Inmates have opportunities to improve their skills while performing valuable services to Mendocino County and the community and service experience and educational programs help to reduce recidivism; eighty per cent of inmates released from camp do not re-offend.

Programs available at the camp include Narcotics Anonymous, Alcoholics Anonymous and religious services. Inmates have the opportunity to obtain a GED diploma or an AA diploma from Lassen Junior College. College instructors visit once a month and the County Bookmobile visits weekly.

There is a hobby craft program onsite that allows them to create redwood burl, handmade clocks; picture frames; jewelry boxes; beaded jewelry; drawings and paintings. All products are donated to non-profits where they are sold.

There is an operational sawmill with up to 17 inmates working and  producing tables and other wood products for the State of California and the State Park system.

The water supply that comes from the South Fork of the Noyo River is purified at their water plant providing them with opportunities to become California Certified Water and Sewer Plant Operators through training provided at the camp.

Depending on their skill level, inmates can earn from $2.90 to $5.12 per day, money that can be saved until an inmate is released.

Visitation permitted only on weekends has increased partly due to prison reform laws and the easing of parole conditions. The camp uses “Out of Bounds” signs instead of boundary fencing.

Although the CDCR staff assists inmates in acquiring California driver’s licenses, the new Federal law requiring a REAL ID license or a passport to board an airplane—documents that are difficult to obtain while incarcerated—makes it difficult for them to fly home.

The GJ states that the camp appears to be well-managed with a dedicated staff—the CDCR and CAL FIRE are to be commended for  maintenance of the facility and for providing a positive model for inmates, creating an environment that allows them to develop a sense of pride and accomplishment while performing their work duties.

Ukiah Daily Journal
September 22, 2020
By Karen Rifkin