[Statewide] Longtime Orange County Resident Receives Prestigious Statewide Service Award

October 29, 2020. The California Grand Jurors’ Association (CGJA) has bestowed its Angelo Rolando Service Award to Dianne Hoffman–until recently, a longtime resident of Orange County.

 

Employed by Pacific Bell in the county for 31 years, she retired in 1996 to pursue a second career in volunteer service. One of her first stops was the 2000-01 Orange County Grand Jury, where she chaired the Editorial Committee. She then joined the Grand Jurors Association of Orange County and CGJA.

 

The annual Angelo Rolando Service Award goes to a person who has demonstrated substantial service statewide and locally in supporting CGJA’s mission and California’s civil grand juries. Hoffman’s 19 years of such service have been invaluable. She was a member of the CGJA Board of Directors for 9 years and was both treasurer and assistant treasurer. She was a grand juror trainer for 17 years, traveling throughout the state. She continues to serve as database manager and on several committees.

 

The California Grand Jurors’ Association is a statewide nonprofit organization of former grand jurors with the mission “to promote, preserve and support the grand jury system through training, education and outreach.”

 

California Grand Jurors’ Association

Jim Ragan, President

(805) 591-9253

jimragan@charter.net

  

[Tuolumne County] Alex MacLean, Reporter for The Union Democrat, Receives Statewide Best Media Reporting Award

October 28, 2020. The California Grand Jurors’ Association has granted the Best News Media Reporting Award to Alex MacLean for his many articles in The Union Democrat on the report by the 2017-18 Tuolumne Grand Jury, “Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority (TCEDA).”

 

The grand jury report described many problems with the TCEDA, a Joint Powers Authority formed in 2009 by Tuolumne County and the City of Sonora to promote business within and from outside the county and city. 

 

The grand jury uncovered problems related to budgetary control, terms of the chief executive officer's contract, board personnel evaluation processes, lack of transparency and improper rules of governance (among others). MacLean covered this report with at least 26 articles through May 2019 in The Union Democrat – from the report's release through many meetings that eventually led to Tuolumne County and the City of Sonora dissolving the TCEDA. MacLean's articles were objective and thorough. He captured and reported on the substantial debate on the issues by the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors, the Sonora City Council, the TCEDA Board, and the highly interested public. 

 

The annual Grand Jury Media Coverage Award program recognizes individuals and media that have created positive changes in their communities by increasing awareness of the California civil grand jury system. The award was presented online on October 26 at the association’s annual membership meeting, attended by over 90 members from throughout the state. Alex MacLean attended to receive the award. He was nominated by the association’s Mother Lode chapter (Amador, Calaveras, and Tuolumne counties).

 

The California Grand Jurors’ Association is a statewide nonprofit organization of former grand jurors with the mission “to promote, preserve and support the grand jury system through training, education and outreach.”

 

California Grand Jurors’ Association

Jim Ragan, President

(805) 591-9253

jimragan@charter.net

 

Marin County Grand Jury Receives Statewide Excellence in Reporting Award

 October 28, 2020. The California Grand Jurors’ Association has granted its Annual Best Grand Jury Report Award to the 2018-19 Marin County Civil Grand Jury for its report “Wildfire Preparedness: A New Approach.” 

In recognition of the unprecedented danger to life and property posed by wildfire, the report made recommendations on directly related issues: vegetation management, educating the public, alerts and evacuations. The Marin County Fire Chief and the head of the Marin County Fire Chiefs Association immediately began planning a Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The proposal was ready by late summer. The grand jury report added the necessary validation that drove discussions leading to a JPA proposal and action. The quality of the proposal and its supporting rationale plus the outreach by a working group of fire chiefs and city managers and a volunteer group (including former grand jury members) ensured success. It was approved by 17 of 19 eligible fire protection jurisdictions. Over 70% of the voters then approved a countywide tax to fund it.

 

The Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority (MWPA) is unique in the California and probably the country. It brings together 17 jurisdictions (cities, towns, fire agencies) to work together to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and to be prepared if prevention efforts fail. The MWPA’s founding documents show that its purpose is to accomplish the recommendations in the grand jury report.

 

The annual Grand Jury Reporting Award recognizes a grand jury report that is of high quality, has a positive impact on the community and increases awareness of the California grand jury system. The award was presented online on October 26 at the association’s membership meeting attended by over 90 members from throughout the state. Patricia Randolph, foreperson of the 2018-19 Marin County Civil Grand Jury and member of the association’s Marin County Chapter, acknowledged receipt of the award.

 

The California Grand Jurors’ Association is a statewide nonprofit organization of former grand jurors with the mission “to promote, preserve and support the grand jury system through training, education and outreach.”

California Grand Jurors’ Association

Jim Ragan, President

(805) 591-9253

jimragan@charter.net

Santa Barbara County Supervisors Reject Civil Grand Jury Report Criticizing Cannabis Response

The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors has firmly rejected a civil grand jury report that criticized the county's handling of cannabis policies and regulations.

Board chairman Gregg Hart said he was not on the board when the regulations were created, but he has served through the many amendments and changes.

"I was disappointed in the grand jury report not telling that part of the story," Hart said at the Sept. 22 board meeting. "It didn't describe the significant amendments the board has made to regulate the cannabis industry."

The grand jury report made several recommendations, including to create cannabis-related environmental impact reports for each region of the county, make ad hoc subcommittees open to the public and subject to open meeting laws, develop standards to disclose access to lobbying individuals, require conditional use permits for all cannabis project, and change the taxation method.

The county rejected all but one of the volunteer grand jury's 11 recommendations. Recommendation No. 9 called for all future ordinances that involve taxation to require that the Santa Barbara County treasurer-tax collector be involved in the creation of the ordinance. The county said it would do so as future situations arise.

No specific staff members or actions were referenced in the report, but both supervisors on the ad hoc subcommittee — First District Supervisor Das Williams and Fifth District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino — have come under attack politically for their role in developing the ordinances.

Cannabis became a major issue in Williams' re-election bid, which he won against challenger Laura Capps in March. Williams also accepted $62,500 from the cannabis industry while serving on the county board that wrote the rules for regulating the industry.

Williams, who represents Carpinteria, the area that has been ground zero for complaints about a cannabis-related skunky smell, said the report was a "rational response," adding that "most of this debate is cloaked in emotions" almost all of the time.

"Where the grand jury missed the mark is this idea that things would be better if we went slower," Williams said. "For residents of the Carpinteria Valley, that odor has been in existence for years. Nothing gets better when things are slower."

Williams said that ultimately, technology will improve the situation, but the grand jury's idea of stopping every attempt to reopen the policy discussion is wrong.

Redoing an EIR just perpetuates people's suffering," Williams said. "Redoing any of this just perpetuates the status quo, which to me is not acceptable."

Williams acknowledged that there is more to do to reduce the impact, but that the situation with odor has improved.

Lavagnino took exception to criticism that he was somehow unduly influenced behind the scenes by the cannabis lobby.

"I can promise you that the ulterior motive that I have is constantly that there is insatiable appetite for additional funding to do the job this county needs to do," Lavagnino said.

He also said that people should not be so quick to jump to conspiracy theories.

"There have been many times in my time on the Board of Supervisors that I have sat, listened to testimony from everybody and it went a certain way and I lost," Lavagnino said. "The board majority voted me down and I never thought, 'Oh, the board majority, those other three people are corrupt.' I felt they had a difference of opinion on a policy matter."

Board member Joan Hartmann agreed.

I think every member who serves on this Board of Supervisors takes ethics very seriously, and I don't think there was anything that was shady that was done," Hartmann said. "It was new, people didn't fully understand how it would impact them and that certainly was the case. We have adapted and made some key changes."

The supervisors have amended the county's land use and business license cannabis ordinances several times already, and most recently decided to ban cultivation within existing developed rural neighborhoods, and require processing and drying to be done indoors with odor control.

Noozhawk
By Joshua Molina
October 8, 2020

[Yolo County] Grand Jury Recommendations Strike Anger In PAC

DAVIS — The Yolo County Grand Jury investigation of the Police Accountability Commission (PAC) suggested that the Davis Police Department (DPD) should have more involvement with the PAC proceedings – igniting passionate disagreements from commissioners as well as the public.

The grand jury looked into the PAC and reported 11 findings and eight recommendations. The first, and most contentious, of these recommendations is that one or more members of the DPD attend all PAC meetings.

The civil grand jury convened through the county’s superior court consists of up to 30 jurors. They sit for one year, examining different issues and investigating all kinds of topics. Previous reports have included investigations into the Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan and election security in Yolo County, according to David Lim, an attorney with Richards, Watson & Gershon, who gave the commission a quick informational presentation in last night’s meeting.

Grand juries usually consist of volunteers (potentially invited by the presiding judge) and people called to jury duty. Vice Mayor Frerichs pointed out that, “a majority of the Yolo County Grand Jury members tend to be volunteers,” and that judge invitation has proven to be an effective way to recruit members.

Commissioner Sean Brooks inquired about the origins of this investigation, saying, “It was very unclear in the report where the grand jury’s interest was generated.” Lim explained that the majority of the time the origins are unknown, and that holds true in this case: “They are not required to tell you, they can if they want.”

One public commenter also asked the commission about the basis of the grand jury investigation and if there was a way to subpoena the group or individuals who submitted the request, calling it “highly suspicious.”

Public commenter Connor Gorman urged the commission to disregard the grand jury’s recommendation for increased police involvement in PAC meetings. Gorman echoed other public commenters by stating, “The grand jury is trying to say that [the police] should have more say in this space as well and that’s really just a representation of the privilege that a lot of police departments feel around how much power and access they should have when they already have so much.”

Gorman also disagreed with the institution of grand juries, expressing that they “are very racist institutions,” and even though civil and criminal grand juries are different, “the history and structure [of both] is still very problematic.”

“Power dynamics” were consistently brought up by public commenters. Julea Shaw emphasized to the council that the PAC meetings are “one of the few spaces that [some members of the community] do feel they can speak,” and that she was “disturbed by this idea that we are trying to cater to this minority and how that was belittled.”

The commission shared their anger with the report, with many urging that a response should not be a main agenda item. Brooks stated, “This is not something we should take seriously.”

Brooks elaborated his concerns pointing out that “our decision to not have police present in our meetings was not a decision made lightly” and that the report gave the impression that the commission was only seeking to appease a small part of the constituency, which Brooks asserted is a “cynical way of saying we were trying to look out for members of our community who might be concerned about their safety.”

Other members of the commission shared Brooks’ discontent, emphasizing that there was an abundance of materials made available to the grand jury, and yet their report still seemed to lack important context.

Commission Chair Dillan Horton highlighted the commission’s emphasis on balance with the police department, pointing out their communication with DPD for information and technical expertise but also the need for the PAC to “make our meeting spaces an outreach accessible to everyone.”

Another public commenter Francesca Wright, encouraged the commission to continue their diligent work, stating, “The city of Davis needs to be very proud of how we have an independent police auditor who is an expert in policing, as a liaison with the PD with access to police information.”

Echoing the thoughts of various commission members, she continued to urge that they “strongly defend the rationale behind [lack of police presence in meetings] and the effectiveness of that.”

Commission members Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, Abram Jones, Judith MacBrine and Mary Bliss all concurred with Horton that there were aspects of the report the commission disagreed with and that a response should be made to the city council to express their concerns and give council more information.

While a response to the grand jury from the PAC is optional, City Council is required to make a formal response to the report within 90 days.

A movement was passed to create a subcommittee that would focus primarily on formulating a response to the grand jury report, in order to not divert any more time or effort away from the PAC’s upcoming agenda items.

The subcommittee will be creating this response based on the opinions expressed by members during this meeting, as well as more information and perspectives they will forward to the subcommittee through staff.

The subcommittee will consist of commissioners Bliss, Jones and MacBrine.

Horton emphasized that the response is necessary due to the commission’s unity in disagreeing with the report’s findings, stating, “It would be less crucial for us to have a substantive response if we just agreed with everything in the report.”

The Davis Vanguard
By Emily Dill
October 8, 2020

Humboldt County supervisors see need for centralized dispatch

 Report on Lawson homicide: Decentralization hampered response

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously approved responses to two civil grand jury reports released earlier this year.

One report dealt with the killing of David Josiah Lawson in April 2017 and the other dealt with inspections of correctional facilities in the county.

Lawson report

The board was required to respond to a finding in the Lawson report that “a decentralized dispatch system hampered communication and added delays to the emergency and law enforcement response.”

The board partially agreed with the finding, Deputy County Administrative Officer Sean Quincey said.

“The simple truth is that the process takes time,” Quincey told the board. “And even if the responding agencies share a facility or system. However, the board realizes that there are benefits to having a centralized dispatch system with other agencies.”

The report recommended the county establish a centralized dispatch center.

The board responded that “the recommendation requires further analysis.”

Humboldt County Sheriff William Honsal said work is currently underway on looking at ways to consolidate dispatch.

“This has been studied and this continues to be studied as far as a joint communication center, and we are moving forward with that,” Honsal said.  “We were planning on bringing this before the board before COVID happened, we actually had it scheduled but then we had to draw back from that.”

He added he believes it would be a good move for the county.

“We think it will be beneficial for our entire community but it’s got to be something that this board will sign off on,” he said.

Staff anticipates bringing the idea of centralized dispatch back to the board by the end of the 2020-21 fiscal year.

Additionally, the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office was required to respond to a finding that “any determination that the David Josiah Lawson homicide was not a hate crime is premature.”

DA Maggie Fleming said she agreed with the finding. The DA’s office was also required to respond to a recommendation that the “final determination of hate crime designation should be withheld until a perpetrator is charged,” which Fleming said “has been implemented and will continue to be implemented.”

“Premature charging decisions driven not by evidence but by narratives popular with some segments of society do not serve justice,” Fleming wrote in her response. “Ethical prosecutors do not make such decisions.”

Correctional sites report

The county’s human resources department and the county’s probation department were required to respond to a report on correction facilities.

The report found the time it takes to vet, recruit and hire staff “impede the effective delivery of mental health care.”

County HR disagreed with the finding and shared the timeline for hiring three substance abuse counselors from the time the advertisement was place to the time a referred list was shared with the hiring department: One took 17 days, one took 48 days and one opening in which recruitment closed May 18 is still ongoing, according to the staff report.

The county will not implement the recommendation to “examine and improve their effectiveness in hiring, onboarding, and recruitment processes to better fill vacancies.”

The probation department disagreed with a finding that “increasing the training and certification of substance use disorder counselors in Juvenile Hall should increase the effectiveness of treatment of juvenile detainees.”

“As of the writing of this response, 11 of the 12 substance use counselors employed by the Department of Health and Human Services have their state license,” the probation department stated in response.

The probation department was also called on to seek more volunteer-led learning opportunities for youth in juvenile hall, a recommendation the department states it has implemented.

Programs available to youth in the juvenile hall include everything from drumming and origami to religious services and access to recovery programs.

Eureka Times-Standard
By RUTH SCHNEIDER | rschneider@times-standard.com
 October 6, 2020

[Placer County] Civil Grand Jury examines Placer County's readiness for November election

As ballots arrive in mailboxes around the county this week, Placer County election officials continue to ready themselves for Election Day.

The Placer County Civil Grand Jury released a readiness report of the Placer County Elections Office, and the results were “outstanding.”

“It’s certainly timely and smart of the grand jury to look at this upcoming election,” said Ryan Ronco, Placer County Clerk-Recorder-Registrar of Voters. “They dove in with both feet and tried to look at everything in detail to utilize their ability as the eyes and ears of the residents of Placer County. We are gratified they took the care necessary to look at the processes, ask questions and come back with a report.”

To ensure all residents could vote safely this year, legislators passed Assembly Bill 860 and Senate Bill 423, making California a vote-by-mail state. The grand jury looked into the Placer County Election Office and its readiness to conduct a vote-by-mail election and highlighted the changes being made to ensure a successful election.

“The Placer County Grand Jury spent considerable time and effort to provide fact-based information to the citizens of this county,” said Walter Moore, Foreperson of this year’s grand jury. “With all the confusion and misperceptions surround the 2020 general election, the jury believed that this investigation was timely and of the utmost importance to the voters of Placer County.”

While vote-by-mail ballots are being mailed to every registered voter in Placer County, the process does not take away the opportunity to vote in person, Ronco stressed. Typically, Placer County has approximated 15 percent of voters who prefer to vote in person.

“If they want, they can bring their ballot into a voter center and get the opportunity to vote in person," Ronco said. "It might not look the same.”

Voting in person will look a little different, as the process is a bit different, too, which the grand jury report highlights. Instead of running 230 neighborhood polling places, the county will host 28 voting centers this election. A voter may vote in person or return a mail-in ballot to any voting center; they are not assigned to a particular one.

If a voter wishes to vote in person, they will go to a voter center, which will be open four days leading up to the election, and check in with election workers who will check their eligibility to vote in live time using a new cradle-point cellular connection.

Once the voter has the green light, they are directed to another newer technology, a touch screen stand-alone, off-line system that will guide the voter electronically through each race and then print a paper ballot of results, which will go into an envelope that will need to be signed and sealed before going into the ballot box.

“It’s important to know that in November, every voter in Placer County will cast a paper ballot,” Ronco said.

Voters will also be able to vote as soon as they receive their ballot in the mail. Voting in person is available at the Auburn and Rocklin Election Offices from 8 a.m.-5 p.m. Monday through Friday. The offices will also be open the last two weekends leading up to Election Day from 9 a.m-4 p.m.

Vote-by-mail ballots can also be returned  at one of the county’s drop box locations. Ballots can be mailed and will be accepted up to 17 days after Election Day as long as they are postmarked by Election Day.

The report also looked into the possibility of voter fraud.

“The Placer County Elections Office staff takes every possible precaution to avoid voter fraud,” the report stated. “In the past 20 years there have been no identified cases of voter fraud within Placer County.”

The Elections Office credits its lack of fraud to its signature validation process. And for residents worried about their signature being rejected for an incorrect match, the county has a multi-step system that will reach out to the voter ultimately if there is an issue with the signature.

The grand jury report revealed that in the March primary election, there were 114,434 envelopes returned. Of those, 97% (111,003) were classified as “Good” and the ballot was counted. Three percent were challenged for a number of reasons. There were 2,139 (2 percent) envelopes that were “cured,” meaning the issue with the envelope was resolved and the ballot was counted. Of the 1,292 envelopes (1 percent) not counted in the final tally, 89% were due to the fact there was no ballot in the envelope or there was no signature.

“The grand jury found that the Placer Elections Office management and staff are doing an outstanding job planning and preparing for the upcoming general election,” the report stated. “While there are unique challenges for the upcoming election, the department is very proactive and working hard to foresee any issues that could arise.”

To download and read a copy of the grand jury report, visit www.placer.courts.ca.gov/general-grandjury-reports.shtml.

Gold Country Media
Auburn Journal 
Traci Newell
October 06, 2020

 

Your [Humboldt County] Civil Grand Jury In Action: Behavioral health opens public input

One of the major missions of the Humboldt County Chapter of the California Grand Jurors’ Association (HCC-CGJA) is to educate the public about the California Civil Grand Jury, and how it can influence change within county/city governments. The HCC-CGJA always looks for ways to improve communication between county/city governments and the residents of Humboldt County.

Recently, the 2019-2020 Civil Grand Jury published eight reports each addressing a different concern they investigated within county/city governments. One of these reports, titled “BeHold: The Department of Mental Health’s Management of the Public Guardian’s Office and Patients’ Rights Advocate,” contained a recommendation to include the Patients’ Rights Advocate in all future Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) meetings without restrictions.

The response by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) opens a window of opportunity to the residents of this county. Specifically, the response indicates that Behavioral Health (BH) is in the process of changing the format of its CQI meetings to include a public portion. This should allow public input to address and improve the processes BH uses within our community.

In an attempt to better understand Behavioral Health’s intent to include public participation at CQI events, HCC-CGJA sent a request to the head of BH on Sept. 12, asking for additional information. As of the writing of this article, Sept. 22, HCC-CGJA has not received a response. Our request included:

• How are you defining public participation?
• Is public membership limited?
• How does a member of the public participate in these meetings?
• When can the public expect these public meetings to begin?

Without specific answers to these questions HCC-CGJA is unable to provide the details of how BH envisions changes to its CQI program to include the public.

What we do know is that an appropriate CQI program focuses on processes rather than individuals. This means it studies how services are provided to our community members and not just if John Doe or Mary Smith received his services. It recognizes both internal and external customers, which indicates it is just as interested in the services BH provides to Child Welfare Services as it is in the services provided to the general public. Finally, it promotes the need for objective data to analyze and improve processes, expecting BH to collect data such as how long steps in a process took to complete (time data), how many hours they spent in completing a particular process step (cost data), and how much they improved the lives of their clients (success rate data).

We can therefore anticipate that BH will be opening up their CQI programs and data analysis for public scrutiny. Such transparency should allow the public to advocate for changed internal and external processes, based on sound data analysis.

Behavioral Health needs to understand that true CQI uses data points as discussed above, and not names and addresses. Past Civil Grand Jury reports have indicated that BH tends to “hide” its data and analysis behind the firewall of “need to know.” Data has no personally identifiable characteristics. The public does need to know and understand the processes and collected data BH uses to perform its services. The public does not need to nor should it know which individuals and families BH serves.

Time will tell how BH plans to become more transparent to the public through the use of an appropriate CQI program. HCC-CGJA will continue to monitor BH progress and keep you informed as to any actions taken.

Eureka Times-Standard
Timothy P. Hafner, president of HCC-CGJA, authored this monthly column on behalf of the Humboldt County Grand Jurors’ Association. For information on the Association email us: hcccgja@gmail.com.
October 4, 2020

 

 

 

County supervisors respond to [Santa Barbara] Grand Jury report on cannabis

In a Sept. 22 letter addressed to Honorable Michael J. Carrozzo, presiding judge of the Santa Barbara Superior Court, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors responded to the Civil Grand Jury Report on cannabis, published on June 30. In response to the jury’s 12 findings, the board partially disagreed or dismissed entirely each finding and subsequent recommendations as unwarranted or inaccurate.

Lack of consideration for public health concerns

The board “wholly” disagreed with the jury’s first finding that they inadequately considered the impact of cannabis on the health and welfare of county residents, noting that since 2016, the board held over 40 public meetings on cannabis and reviewed numerous oral and written public comments, including recommendations from the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the program. Additionally, the board noted that the Public Health Department participated in the Cannabis Ad Hoc Subcommittee. 

Lack of transparency

To the jury’s statement that the creation of a non-Brown Act Ad Hoc Sub Committee that was not open to the public led to a lack of transparency and distrust from residents, the board stated that the subcommittee was publicly created and in accordance with the Brown Act, held three public outreach meetings and twice gave public reports to the full board. Moreover, the board rejected the jury’s recommendation that supervisors require all future ad hoc meetings to be open to the public, stating that this is not necessary as non-Brown Act ad hoc committees are commonly used to resolve issues of great complexity—ad hoc committees, such as the one on cannabis, have no authority to act on behalf of the county, but rather are a mechanism to develop recommendations.

Unfettered access to cannabis lobbyists

Did the board grant “unfettered access to cannabis growers and industry lobbyists” and not disclose these activities to the public? The board responded that the jury’s finding was only partially true. They did not disclose all ex parte communications as they are not required by law to do so, however they did provide access to interested parties, including cannabis, business, media, city and neighborhood leaders, as was the intention of the decision making process to allow constituents and stake holders to be a part of the legislative process. Supervisors admitted to meeting with lobbyists and applicants prior to public hearings, however, they stated that this is not uncommon and not a special case for cannabis.

Overconcentration of cannabis activities

Supervisors wholly disagreed with the jury’s finding that current cannabis ordinances are excessive and have led to an overconcentration in some areas of the county, including Carpinteria. They noted that they addressed public concerns related to a concentration of commercial cannabis activities by adopting two separate caps on cannabis cultivation and a ban on cannabis activities in EDRNs (adopted in July 2020).

No effective odor control

To the jury’s finding that there is no effective odor control implemented for cannabis activities resulting in “significant public outcry about odor, quality of life and health concerns,” the supervisors stated that “odor control has been one of the most challenging aspects of implementing this program.” Supervisors noted that legal nonconforming medical cannabis cultivation operations are still in transition to compliance, and are therefore not yet required to comply with the county’s odor control regulations. Once all cultivators have completed the compliance process, the county will be able to enforce all odor control regulations and assess the efficacy of these systems.

Settlement reached in cannabis land use permit appeal

Aultmore Capital, Pacific Grown Organics (PGO) and the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis have announced that they have reached a settlement in the coalition’s appeal of PGO’s proposed cannabis operation in Carpinteria, which will allow PGO to continue their application for a land use permit from the county.

PGO stated that they have created a “robust adaptive management plan to meet the challenge of odor control” and that the coalition was instrumental in developing this plan—the Odor Inquiry Response Plan—that will take into account community feedback to hold cannabis farms accountable in addressing odor drift. PGO has agreed to make public its standard operating procedures for harvesting and their Odor Abatement Plan, including a weather monitoring system, a community outreach list and notification protocols, initial VOC monitoring upon operation, and a robust Odor Inquiry Response and Corrective Action Plan.

“PGO’s commitment to test the effectiveness of this new approach and then do whatever is needed to control odors and prevent impacts to the community convinced us this was a responsible grower who deserved our support,” said Coalition Board member Rob Salomon. “The coalition has been working hard for over a year to create a sustainable and compatible relationship with area growers. We’re glad PGO stepped up to the plate and we look forward to a sustainable future for cannabis in Carpinteria.”

Carpenteria Coastal Views.com
By Debra Herrick
 September 30, 2020

Mental health ‘tsunami’ looms: Can California prevent a surge in suicides?

Blog Note: This article refers to a 2016 Humboldt County Grand Jury Report near end of article.

IN SUMMARY
Humboldt County, tucked into the redwoods on the state’s far North Coast, also has a much higher suicide rate than most of California. The pandemic has fueled new concerns.

Celinda Gonzales has a long list of worries: She worries about COVID-19, which recently spiked near the Yurok reservation where she lives in Humboldt County. She worries about the wildfires threatening her remote, forested town, Weitchpec. She worries about gill rot and algae blooms in the Klamath and Trinity rivers, which join together just over the hill from her trailer; she worries, too, about what the resulting small salmon runs mean for her financially struggling community.

And she worries about the prospect of more suicides.

“It’s very hard to stay mentally strong right now,” she said. 

For several years, Gonzales, 53, has worked in suicide prevention in the northwestern corner of California, famous for its rocky coastlines and breathtaking forests. It carries the burden of another reputation – about 2 and a half times as many of Humboldt’s residents die by suicide per capita as the rest of the state.

That weight is felt across this county of 135,000, as well as in many neighboring rural counties, where mental health providers are in short supply.

Now, in this region and across the state, the pressures of the pandemic and economic downturn, compounded by racial tensions and climate-change-fueled megafires, are amplifying that concern. Gun sales are up nationally, including in California, according to a recent FBI report on firearm background checks. Experts worry substance use here may also be increasing. Individually, these factors are stressors; together, they’re a powder keg.

“We are very concerned about the layering of multiple stresses on the people of California,” said Jim Kooler, assistant deputy director of the state Department of Health Care Services’ behavioral health division. He describes the current moment as having “challenges on top of challenges that we’ve never had to face before.”

Adding to these challenges: The state has a decentralized public mental health system, which can make a concerted statewide effort to address suicide even more challenging.

A bill to create a statewide Office of Suicide Prevention was signed into law last Friday by Gov. Gavin Newsom. But there was a big caveat: At this point, there’s no money for it.

Meanwhile, pressure is building. Mental health leaders in the state are now commonly defaulting to the word “tsunami” to describe a predicted onslaught of mental health needs and suicides, which many believe will last long after any vaccine is distributed.

Historical precedent amplifies this sense of urgency. In the years following the last recession, an estimated 4,750 more Americans than projected died by suicide, according to an analysis published in The Lancet.

Nationally, rates of anxiety have already tripled and rates of depression have quadrupled compared to a year ago, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One especially sobering finding: More than a quarter of the nation’s 18- to 24-year-olds reported seriously considering suicide in the last 30 days.

Monthly calls to a suicide prevention crisis hotline run by Sacramento-based WellSpace Health, which serves much of the state, almost doubled this year compared to a year earlier — up from a little more than 3,000 for June 2019 to almost 6,000 in June 2020.

“The psychological impact of COVID cannot be underestimated,” said Jonathan Porteus, WellSpace’s chief executive officer.

One of the main words he said they hear from callers: “hopeless.”

A county searches for answers

Humboldt’s high suicide rate can be traced to a combination of factors: gun ownership, low median incomes and the precipitous decline of work in the logging, construction, fisheries and manufacturing sectors, mental health leaders there say. Heavy opioid and prescription drug use is also a key element — the county’s overdose death rate is often more than triple the statewide average, according to a county report, and is especially high in the Native American community.

For Native American residents like Celinda Gonzales, who make up more than 6% of the county’s population, historical and ongoing trauma and suffering are also significant, said Virgil Moorehead, a clinical psychologist and executive director of Two Feathers Native American Family Services.

“I don’t want to frame it as a mental illness,” he said. “I would frame it more as existential despair.”

 After Gonzales’ son, and then her brother, took their lives, she realized that suicide prevention would be her life’s work. “We have to talk about it, it’s reality and we have to address it, and how do we help,” Gonzales said. Photo by Alexandra Hootnick for CalMatters.

Access to mental health services in Humboldt County is a problem, too, said Dr. Robert Soper, who heads a countywide behavioral health consortium he started five years ago. Soper, 71, said he is the only private psychiatrist left in the county. For years there were five, he said, but as his colleagues retired, no one replaced them. Being so remote from major cities makes it difficult to recruit, he said.

“If I could find someone good, I would have them in a heartbeat,” he said. “They would be full before they walked in the door.”

In 2016, the county’s civil grand jury received several complaints about the county’s mental health branch, with staff and local mental health advocates reporting “dysfunctional work guidelines, distrustful working relationships, unresponsive upper management, mass resignations, and an unsupportive work environment.” In its investigation, the grand jury found the county’s behavioral health board had done little to improve those conditions.

The county’s behavioral health director, Emi Botzler-Rodgers, told CalMatters her office has been “working diligently to change our branch culture” and improve staff morale. And Soper notes another important development: the county now has a mobile crisis team that can quickly evaluate people.

Two years ago, health officials in Eureka, the county seat, decided to make a concerted effort to address the county’s high suicide rate.

CalMatters
BY JOCELYN WIENER
September 30, 2020