OPINION - MODESTO BEE EDITORIALS
Two years ago this spring, Hughson was in a political uproar.
A civil grand jury had found that three of the five City Council members had broken state laws, conspired against their staff and promoted their personal agendas. The three councilmen refused to resign and by April 2010, enough signatures had been collected to force a recall election.
The city manager had been terminated but wasn't officially yet out of office. Council meetings were riddled with name-calling and conflict, and the disagreements extended far beyond city hall. The council was so bogged down in arguments about who should be censured or fired that it wasn't dealing with basics — like making sure the budget was balanced.
So what is happening in Stanislaus County's smallest city these days?
We're pleased to report that the city government is stable and functioning well.
The budget is in check, after some painful staff layoffs — by percentage, the most in the region. And council members are leaving the minutiae of daily operations to the city manager while they focus on the kinds of policy and long-term issues that elected leaders are supposed to address. These include how to grow businesses and jobs in Hughson and how to provide water and other essential services to residents.
Stanislaus County Supervisor Vito Chiesa represents the area that includes Hughson, and he watched with frustration during the chaos in 2010. "This council and management has done the necessary things to right the ship," Chiesa says.
Credit goes to all the current council members: Mayor Ramon Bawanan, Councilman Matt Beekman, and the three newcomers who joined the council in the August 2010 recall vote: Jill Silva, Jeramy Young and George Carr.
But the city also has a capable city manager in Bryan Whitemyer, who was hired in November 2010 after gaining a good variety of experience in Patterson, Modesto and Ceres.
So how does a small city function with only 14 full-time employees? Hughson has developed some resourceful solutions. Two department heads are part-timers — qualified and experienced people who retired from other cities.
Hughson saved money in its police services contract with the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department by agreeing to a three-way share of the police chief. Waterford and the county are the other partners.
In some areas where Hughson doesn't need full-time employees, such as planning, it contracts with other cities or private firms.
Hughson is served by a mostly volunteer fire department, so the city avoids the other big-ticket public safety expense.
The workforce reduction in early 2011 was so great that the city no longer needs its Development Services building, so it is working with Stanislaus Alliance and Workforce Development to turn the place into a business incubator. People wanting to start small businesses will be invited to lease office space; the Alliance will screen applicants to assure they have viable business plans.
Not everything is ideal. Residents pay some of the highest sewer rates in the region because of the city's $21 million investment in a new wastewater treatment that officially opens this month. The complex was planned during the homebuilding boom, when Hughson expected to reach a population of 18,000 by 2030. Realistically, the city of 6,600 won't come anywhere near that population until many years later.
Eventually, however, the sewer capacity will be needed. For now, home building has resumed in Hughson at a livelier pace than in much of Stanislaus County.
Because of the city's huge obligation for wastewater facilities, the council decided it cannot participate in the planning for a joint surface water treatment plant with Ceres, Turlock and other communities south of the Tuolumne River. In the meantime, the city is again being resourceful. Non-potable well water will be used to irrigate a new park and school sports complex — saving money and reserving the best quality well water for drinking.
We applaud the leaders, employees and residents of Hughson on their community's remarkable turnaround.
We also think it provides a useful reminder: Local agencies need capable and committed leaders, people who will set aside personal agendas for the community good. Hughson and six other cities in Stanislaus County will be filling council seats in November.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Sunday, April 8, 2012
(Yolo County) New supervising judge for Yolo Grand Jury
- DailyDemocrat.com
Yolo Superior Court announced that effective July 1, Judge Dan Maguire is designated as the Yolo County Grand Jury Supervising Judge.
Assistant Presiding Judge Steven Basha stated, "Judge Maguire is an excellent choice for this important role because of his leadership skills and commitment to the community."
Maguire was appointed to the Yolo Superior Court bench in 2010 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Prior to his appointment, he worked as a deputy legal affairs secretary in the Governor's Office, and before that he maintained a private law practice in Yolo County. He earned a Juris Doctorate degree from Harvard University Law School after completing his undergraduate work at Stanford University. He was admitted to the State Bar of California in December, 1997.
The primary civil function of the grand jury, acting as an entirely independent body, is to review the operations of city and county government as well as other tax supported agencies and special districts. The grand jury also investigates complaints from private citizens, local government officials or government employees. Based on the reviews and investigations, the grand jury publishes its findings and may recommend constructive action to improve the quality and effectiveness of local government.
Another responsibility of the grand jury is to consider criminal indictments based on evidence presented.
"I am honored to act as the Supervising Judge for the Yolo County Grand Jury," stated Judge Maguire. "The grand jury is a venerable institution with roots tracing back hundreds of years, but it is still a vital part of our democratic process, and it provides valuable citizen oversight of our government."
For more information about the grand jury or an application to serve on the 2012-13 Yolo County Grand Jury, see the Yolo Superior Court's website at www.yolo.courts.ca.gov or call 406-6828. Applications are due May 11.
Yolo Superior Court announced that effective July 1, Judge Dan Maguire is designated as the Yolo County Grand Jury Supervising Judge.
Assistant Presiding Judge Steven Basha stated, "Judge Maguire is an excellent choice for this important role because of his leadership skills and commitment to the community."
Maguire was appointed to the Yolo Superior Court bench in 2010 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Prior to his appointment, he worked as a deputy legal affairs secretary in the Governor's Office, and before that he maintained a private law practice in Yolo County. He earned a Juris Doctorate degree from Harvard University Law School after completing his undergraduate work at Stanford University. He was admitted to the State Bar of California in December, 1997.
The primary civil function of the grand jury, acting as an entirely independent body, is to review the operations of city and county government as well as other tax supported agencies and special districts. The grand jury also investigates complaints from private citizens, local government officials or government employees. Based on the reviews and investigations, the grand jury publishes its findings and may recommend constructive action to improve the quality and effectiveness of local government.
Another responsibility of the grand jury is to consider criminal indictments based on evidence presented.
"I am honored to act as the Supervising Judge for the Yolo County Grand Jury," stated Judge Maguire. "The grand jury is a venerable institution with roots tracing back hundreds of years, but it is still a vital part of our democratic process, and it provides valuable citizen oversight of our government."
For more information about the grand jury or an application to serve on the 2012-13 Yolo County Grand Jury, see the Yolo Superior Court's website at www.yolo.courts.ca.gov or call 406-6828. Applications are due May 11.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Lawyer seeks dismissal of San Bernardino County corruption figure
Joe Nelson, Staff Writer - Redlands Daily Facts
The attorney for an Apple Valley businessman linked to a sweeping San Bernardino County corruption case filed a motion Friday in Superior Court seeking dismissal of the case.
John Dino DeFazio, 52, is charged with six felony counts of perjury for allegedly lying to the county's civil Grand Jury in 2009 about his involvement with a political action committee prosecutors allege was used to conceal a $100,000 bribe to former county Assessor Bill Postmus.
DeFazio was listed as chairman of the Inland Empire PAC established in February 2007. He told the Grand Jury in October 2009 that he controlled all activities associated with the PAC.
Prosecutors, however, allege Postmus had DeFazio and former Assistant Assessor Adam Aleman create the PAC and another, Conservatives for a Republican Majority, to conceal the alleged bribe from Rancho Cucamonga developer Jeff Burum.
Two checks, each totaling $50,000 and listing Colonies Partners LP as the payee, were deposited into the two PAC accounts in 2007. Burum is a co-managing partner of Colonies Partners.
Burum, a defendant in the corruption case, has denied any wrongdoing and maintains the contributions were an act of good faith - an attempt to rebuild bridges with county elected officials following a contentious legal battle over who was responsible for paying for flood control improvements at Colonies' 434-acre residential and commercial development in Upland.
Postmus testified before a criminal grand jury last April that he was unaware that Colonies wanted to contribute money to the PACs until January 2007 - more than a month after the settlement was finalized. He told an FBI agent and federal prosecutors in October the same thing during an interview.
In November 2006, the county entered into a settlement agreement with Burum and Colonies Partners, agreeing to pay $102 million. Prosecutors allege the settlement was tainted by bribery.
In his motion filed Friday, DeFazio's attorney, Richard Ewaniszyk, said DeFazio cannot be charged with the crimes because prosecutors are relying on uncorroborated witness information.
DeFazio, however, has been able to corroborate his assertion that he controlled all activities associated with the Inland Empire PAC. The PAC's bylaws showed DeFazio as chairman and High Desert developers Mike Gallagher and Jeff Bentow as board members. Bentow and Gallagher, however, denied having any knowledge they were listed as members of the PAC, according to the motion.
During DeFazio's preliminary hearing in February, Hesperia Mayor Russ Blewett testified that he was interviewed by DeFazio, Gallagher and Bentow on behalf of the I.E. PAC, and all three individuals contributed between $5,000 and $6,000 to his campaign, according to the motion.
Randy Coleman, a civil engineer and member of the county Planning Commission and the Apple Valley Town Counsel Equestrian Committee, also testified during DeFazio's preliminary hearing that he and his father donated to the Inland Empire PAC, and that DeFazio, Gallagher and Bentow all held themselves out as being on the PAC, Ewaniszyk said in his motion.
Ewaniszyk also said PAC treasurer Betty Presley testified that she wrote all of the checks from the PAC account, and would only write the checks if they were directed to DeFazio.
Prosecutor John Goritz declined to comment, saying his position on the matter will be laid out in his answer to Ewaniszyk's motion, which he said he will file in a timely manner.
Ewaniszyk and DeFazio declined to comment.
A hearing on the motion is scheduled for May 4 before Judge J. David Mazurek.
The attorney for an Apple Valley businessman linked to a sweeping San Bernardino County corruption case filed a motion Friday in Superior Court seeking dismissal of the case.
John Dino DeFazio, 52, is charged with six felony counts of perjury for allegedly lying to the county's civil Grand Jury in 2009 about his involvement with a political action committee prosecutors allege was used to conceal a $100,000 bribe to former county Assessor Bill Postmus.
DeFazio was listed as chairman of the Inland Empire PAC established in February 2007. He told the Grand Jury in October 2009 that he controlled all activities associated with the PAC.
Prosecutors, however, allege Postmus had DeFazio and former Assistant Assessor Adam Aleman create the PAC and another, Conservatives for a Republican Majority, to conceal the alleged bribe from Rancho Cucamonga developer Jeff Burum.
Two checks, each totaling $50,000 and listing Colonies Partners LP as the payee, were deposited into the two PAC accounts in 2007. Burum is a co-managing partner of Colonies Partners.
Burum, a defendant in the corruption case, has denied any wrongdoing and maintains the contributions were an act of good faith - an attempt to rebuild bridges with county elected officials following a contentious legal battle over who was responsible for paying for flood control improvements at Colonies' 434-acre residential and commercial development in Upland.
Postmus testified before a criminal grand jury last April that he was unaware that Colonies wanted to contribute money to the PACs until January 2007 - more than a month after the settlement was finalized. He told an FBI agent and federal prosecutors in October the same thing during an interview.
In November 2006, the county entered into a settlement agreement with Burum and Colonies Partners, agreeing to pay $102 million. Prosecutors allege the settlement was tainted by bribery.
In his motion filed Friday, DeFazio's attorney, Richard Ewaniszyk, said DeFazio cannot be charged with the crimes because prosecutors are relying on uncorroborated witness information.
DeFazio, however, has been able to corroborate his assertion that he controlled all activities associated with the Inland Empire PAC. The PAC's bylaws showed DeFazio as chairman and High Desert developers Mike Gallagher and Jeff Bentow as board members. Bentow and Gallagher, however, denied having any knowledge they were listed as members of the PAC, according to the motion.
During DeFazio's preliminary hearing in February, Hesperia Mayor Russ Blewett testified that he was interviewed by DeFazio, Gallagher and Bentow on behalf of the I.E. PAC, and all three individuals contributed between $5,000 and $6,000 to his campaign, according to the motion.
Randy Coleman, a civil engineer and member of the county Planning Commission and the Apple Valley Town Counsel Equestrian Committee, also testified during DeFazio's preliminary hearing that he and his father donated to the Inland Empire PAC, and that DeFazio, Gallagher and Bentow all held themselves out as being on the PAC, Ewaniszyk said in his motion.
Ewaniszyk also said PAC treasurer Betty Presley testified that she wrote all of the checks from the PAC account, and would only write the checks if they were directed to DeFazio.
Prosecutor John Goritz declined to comment, saying his position on the matter will be laid out in his answer to Ewaniszyk's motion, which he said he will file in a timely manner.
Ewaniszyk and DeFazio declined to comment.
A hearing on the motion is scheduled for May 4 before Judge J. David Mazurek.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Kern County: Senator Seeks Grand Jury Investigation On Athal Mutual Water Company
Sen. Michael Rubio Seeking Transparency, Accountability
Christine Dinh - 23ABC East Bakersfield Reporter
The residents near Lamont whose water well broke last month have received refreshing news. Sen. Michael Rubio wants the grand jury to investigate that area's water district.
Athal Mutual Water Company serves more than 50 homes in the impoverished community of Hilltop near Lamont.
Last month, residents there lost water supply after a well operated by Athal broke down.
Families were without water for several days until local firefighters brought in emergency supplies of water.
Currently, the privately owned water district is buying temporary water supplies from neighboring East Niles Community Services District.
The state and USDA have fast-tracked the construction of a new well, which is expected to be complete in two weeks.
Athal will be in charge of operating the new well.
Athal, has not responded to any public record information requests by residents or Rubio's office, so he is asking the Kern County Grand Jury to conduct an in-depth investigation of Athal in hopes of finding out more than just what caused the water well failure.
"To try to find out what was the cause of it and where's the transparency and the accountability of this privately owned water district," said Rubio.
Rubio and residents want to know how Athal functions, how much it pays staff, what are its fee assessment procedures and other financial documentation. Customers continue to pay $75 per month for water service and $50 per incident assessment.
"Seventy-five dollars for water I can't drink, water I have to boil? That's nonsense. That's not right. What kind of job are these people doing out here? I've never seen maintenance go into that water well. I've never seen things done to it," said Athal customer Jimmy Carbajal.
Athal President Jerry Case interrupted the press conference to defend the company's actions, saying rates and fees go toward operations costs and the company's treasury, especially now that they'll have a new well.
"So we got to have money in our treasury to keep up. If that well goes down again, it's on us. And if we don't have money in our treasury, we're out of water again. That's what the assessment fee is for," said Case.
Case says he's not worried about a grand jury investigation.
"That's fine. I have nothing to hide. I make a good living. I work. I don't need anybody's money. I work," said Case.
Rubio said he expects a response by the grand jury in the next few months.
Christine Dinh - 23ABC East Bakersfield Reporter
The residents near Lamont whose water well broke last month have received refreshing news. Sen. Michael Rubio wants the grand jury to investigate that area's water district.
Athal Mutual Water Company serves more than 50 homes in the impoverished community of Hilltop near Lamont.
Last month, residents there lost water supply after a well operated by Athal broke down.
Families were without water for several days until local firefighters brought in emergency supplies of water.
Currently, the privately owned water district is buying temporary water supplies from neighboring East Niles Community Services District.
The state and USDA have fast-tracked the construction of a new well, which is expected to be complete in two weeks.
Athal will be in charge of operating the new well.
Athal, has not responded to any public record information requests by residents or Rubio's office, so he is asking the Kern County Grand Jury to conduct an in-depth investigation of Athal in hopes of finding out more than just what caused the water well failure.
"To try to find out what was the cause of it and where's the transparency and the accountability of this privately owned water district," said Rubio.
Rubio and residents want to know how Athal functions, how much it pays staff, what are its fee assessment procedures and other financial documentation. Customers continue to pay $75 per month for water service and $50 per incident assessment.
"Seventy-five dollars for water I can't drink, water I have to boil? That's nonsense. That's not right. What kind of job are these people doing out here? I've never seen maintenance go into that water well. I've never seen things done to it," said Athal customer Jimmy Carbajal.
Athal President Jerry Case interrupted the press conference to defend the company's actions, saying rates and fees go toward operations costs and the company's treasury, especially now that they'll have a new well.
"So we got to have money in our treasury to keep up. If that well goes down again, it's on us. And if we don't have money in our treasury, we're out of water again. That's what the assessment fee is for," said Case.
Case says he's not worried about a grand jury investigation.
"That's fine. I have nothing to hide. I make a good living. I work. I don't need anybody's money. I work," said Case.
Rubio said he expects a response by the grand jury in the next few months.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Stanislaus County: City officials’ trials approach tipping points
by Nick Rappley | Patterson Irrigator
Two upcoming trials stemming from a Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury report that lambasted several city officials last year have reached turning points.
A ruling is expected Tuesday, April 10, in civil contempt-of-court proceedings against former City Attorney George Logan in Stanislaus Superior Court Civil Division. The following week, arguments will commence April 17 in U.S. District Court in Sacramento regarding a motion to dismiss a federal case that Councilwoman Annette Smith has filed against Stanislaus County.
If Logan lost the contempt of court ruling, he could face a $1,000 fine and more than $10,000 in court costs. A judge already ruled March 12 that there would be no change of venue because of court prejudice against Logan, as his alleged contempt of court took place within the Stanislaus County court system. Logan previously shared information about his court testimony to the press after he changed the wording of a document that commanded him not to share details about grand jury proceedings, and then signed it. At the same time, Logan won a motion to have the court records in the case unsealed.
If Smith lost her motion April 17, her case would be over. Smith, whose attorney costs paid by the city have reached more than $27,000, filed a motion Monday, April 2, in opposition to the county’s motion to dismiss.
Costs to defend council members Smith and Dominic Farinha against civil grand jury claims have exceeded $67,000.
Smith’s motion countered the county’s claims in its most recent dismissal motion.
“While grand jury members are often exempt from liability, where they act as they have here, by intentionally circulating a defamatory report, liability may be found,” wrote Smith’s attorney, Michael Babitzke, in court papers. “In particular, the actions of the grand jury in the aggregate delimit and intrude on (Smith’s) first amendment rights to perform her duties as city council person for the City of Patterson in the manner she believes is proper.”
The county filed the dismissal motion March 16, claiming that Smith’s responses were not timely in court and that grand juries are arms of the court and not part of county government.
Smith’s original complaint, filed in October in federal court, was dismissed Jan. 26 because it was too vague, according to U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill.
Her amended complaint, filed in February, labeled grand jury members as county employees.
“Grand jury members are as a matter of law considered to be employees of the County of Stanislaus and were so employed at all relevant times,” stated Smith’s court documents. “Grand jury members are compensated on a daily basis by the County of Stanislaus, receive parking permits, office keys, access to a copy machine, access to email and access to a grand jury library to compensate them for services provided.”
The grand jury’s report released in late June stated that Smith participated in a vote regarding developer John Ramos’ legal fees while she had a financial relationship with him and also stated that Ramos had written off expenses for Smith in the past. It also criticized Smith for allegedly confronting a resident in a supermarket parking lot and using abusive language. The report stated further that she pressured city staff to fire former City Manager Cleve Morris and former Community Development Director Rod Simpson.
The report called for Smith’s ouster, by either citizen recall or her resignation. The grand jury also recommended that former Mayor Becky Campo pay back money she received as mayor because she allegedly lived outside city limits.
It further stated that the city should file a complaint with the California State Bar to chastise Logan for alleged improprieties, such as failing to be in the room when the council voted to reimburse Ramos for $27,000 in legal fees. The grand jury advised that Ramos return that money to the city and admonished Councilman Dominic Farinha for open-meeting violations.
• Nick Rappley can be reached at 892-6187, ext. 31, or nick@pattersonirrigator.com.
Two upcoming trials stemming from a Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury report that lambasted several city officials last year have reached turning points.
A ruling is expected Tuesday, April 10, in civil contempt-of-court proceedings against former City Attorney George Logan in Stanislaus Superior Court Civil Division. The following week, arguments will commence April 17 in U.S. District Court in Sacramento regarding a motion to dismiss a federal case that Councilwoman Annette Smith has filed against Stanislaus County.
If Logan lost the contempt of court ruling, he could face a $1,000 fine and more than $10,000 in court costs. A judge already ruled March 12 that there would be no change of venue because of court prejudice against Logan, as his alleged contempt of court took place within the Stanislaus County court system. Logan previously shared information about his court testimony to the press after he changed the wording of a document that commanded him not to share details about grand jury proceedings, and then signed it. At the same time, Logan won a motion to have the court records in the case unsealed.
If Smith lost her motion April 17, her case would be over. Smith, whose attorney costs paid by the city have reached more than $27,000, filed a motion Monday, April 2, in opposition to the county’s motion to dismiss.
Costs to defend council members Smith and Dominic Farinha against civil grand jury claims have exceeded $67,000.
Smith’s motion countered the county’s claims in its most recent dismissal motion.
“While grand jury members are often exempt from liability, where they act as they have here, by intentionally circulating a defamatory report, liability may be found,” wrote Smith’s attorney, Michael Babitzke, in court papers. “In particular, the actions of the grand jury in the aggregate delimit and intrude on (Smith’s) first amendment rights to perform her duties as city council person for the City of Patterson in the manner she believes is proper.”
The county filed the dismissal motion March 16, claiming that Smith’s responses were not timely in court and that grand juries are arms of the court and not part of county government.
Smith’s original complaint, filed in October in federal court, was dismissed Jan. 26 because it was too vague, according to U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill.
Her amended complaint, filed in February, labeled grand jury members as county employees.
“Grand jury members are as a matter of law considered to be employees of the County of Stanislaus and were so employed at all relevant times,” stated Smith’s court documents. “Grand jury members are compensated on a daily basis by the County of Stanislaus, receive parking permits, office keys, access to a copy machine, access to email and access to a grand jury library to compensate them for services provided.”
The grand jury’s report released in late June stated that Smith participated in a vote regarding developer John Ramos’ legal fees while she had a financial relationship with him and also stated that Ramos had written off expenses for Smith in the past. It also criticized Smith for allegedly confronting a resident in a supermarket parking lot and using abusive language. The report stated further that she pressured city staff to fire former City Manager Cleve Morris and former Community Development Director Rod Simpson.
The report called for Smith’s ouster, by either citizen recall or her resignation. The grand jury also recommended that former Mayor Becky Campo pay back money she received as mayor because she allegedly lived outside city limits.
It further stated that the city should file a complaint with the California State Bar to chastise Logan for alleged improprieties, such as failing to be in the room when the council voted to reimburse Ramos for $27,000 in legal fees. The grand jury advised that Ramos return that money to the city and admonished Councilman Dominic Farinha for open-meeting violations.
• Nick Rappley can be reached at 892-6187, ext. 31, or nick@pattersonirrigator.com.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
(San Francisco) Judges seeking more diverse civil grand jury
By: Ari Burack | 04/03/12 9:49 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer
Minorities are not well-represented on San Francisco’s civil grand jury, to the detriment of their communities, a committee of Superior Court judges said Tuesday.
The overwhelming majority of applicants to the volunteer civilian watchdog group are white, with Asian, black, Hispanic and American Indian candidates numbering only a handful, according to the court.
“If you don’t have the members of the public there to say, ‘Well, let’s investigate such-and-such,’ then you’re missing entire segments of The City,” said Judge Charlotte Woolard, chairwoman of the court’s civil grand jury committee. “So we are reaching — or attempting to reach — the goal of having every community represented.”
The 19-member civil grand jury — required of each county under state law — convenes for a year, conducting investigations of city and county government and its agencies, and issues policy recommendations in reports.
Some of the reports have had significant impacts, such as a recent one warning of a city employee “pension tsunami,” which helped spur legislation to cope with the problem.
Last year, the grand jury issued reports on Parkmerced, city hiring practices, the Ethics Commission, the Central Subway plan, the Bayview-Hunters Point redevelopment project and The City’s whistle-blower program.
Judges noted that the time demands of serving on a grand jury tend to discourage people who need to work full time.
“It also has to be meaningful,” added Judge Lillian Sing. “I think in the past … the subjects have not been that meaningful to the minority community.”
This year, for the first time, the grand jury application will include an optional question about sexual orientation in an effort to attract more gay and lesbian jurors.
“So many people, especially in San Francisco, love to complain about everything that’s going on,” said Beate Boultinghouse, president of the local chapter of the California Grand Jurors’ Association. “But what do they do? How can they do anything? Well, if you serve on the civil grand jury, you can have a voice. You can see how the government works, and you can see where something is going wrong.”
While diversity is important, Judge Samuel Feng said interest in civic issues is vital.
“I think it’s a cop-out, these days, if you’re concerned about this city, the issues that are so important to this community, and you just sit there, you don’t do anything,” Feng said.
Those interested should apply with the Superior Court by April 15.
aburack@sfexaminer.com
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/04/judges-seeking-more-diverse-civil-grand-jury#ixzz1r7GJHSZw
SF Examiner Staff Writer
Minorities are not well-represented on San Francisco’s civil grand jury, to the detriment of their communities, a committee of Superior Court judges said Tuesday.
The overwhelming majority of applicants to the volunteer civilian watchdog group are white, with Asian, black, Hispanic and American Indian candidates numbering only a handful, according to the court.
“If you don’t have the members of the public there to say, ‘Well, let’s investigate such-and-such,’ then you’re missing entire segments of The City,” said Judge Charlotte Woolard, chairwoman of the court’s civil grand jury committee. “So we are reaching — or attempting to reach — the goal of having every community represented.”
The 19-member civil grand jury — required of each county under state law — convenes for a year, conducting investigations of city and county government and its agencies, and issues policy recommendations in reports.
Some of the reports have had significant impacts, such as a recent one warning of a city employee “pension tsunami,” which helped spur legislation to cope with the problem.
Last year, the grand jury issued reports on Parkmerced, city hiring practices, the Ethics Commission, the Central Subway plan, the Bayview-Hunters Point redevelopment project and The City’s whistle-blower program.
Judges noted that the time demands of serving on a grand jury tend to discourage people who need to work full time.
“It also has to be meaningful,” added Judge Lillian Sing. “I think in the past … the subjects have not been that meaningful to the minority community.”
This year, for the first time, the grand jury application will include an optional question about sexual orientation in an effort to attract more gay and lesbian jurors.
“So many people, especially in San Francisco, love to complain about everything that’s going on,” said Beate Boultinghouse, president of the local chapter of the California Grand Jurors’ Association. “But what do they do? How can they do anything? Well, if you serve on the civil grand jury, you can have a voice. You can see how the government works, and you can see where something is going wrong.”
While diversity is important, Judge Samuel Feng said interest in civic issues is vital.
“I think it’s a cop-out, these days, if you’re concerned about this city, the issues that are so important to this community, and you just sit there, you don’t do anything,” Feng said.
Those interested should apply with the Superior Court by April 15.
aburack@sfexaminer.com
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/04/judges-seeking-more-diverse-civil-grand-jury#ixzz1r7GJHSZw
Glenn County seeks members for Grand Jury (ChicoER.com)
WILLOWS — The County of Glenn is looking for people to serve on the Grand Jury for 2012-2013. The Grand Jury is required by the California Constitution to investigate and report on criminal and civil matters in the county.
The county is sending out 750 applications to randomly selected addresses on voter registration and Department of Motor vehicle lists.
Once the jury is selected, the group meets twice a month.
People who are interested but did not receive an application, can contact Priscilla Butler, court administrative secretary, 934-6382 or www.glenncourt.ca.gov/court_info/grand_jury.html.
The deadline is April 9.
The county is sending out 750 applications to randomly selected addresses on voter registration and Department of Motor vehicle lists.
Once the jury is selected, the group meets twice a month.
People who are interested but did not receive an application, can contact Priscilla Butler, court administrative secretary, 934-6382 or www.glenncourt.ca.gov/court_info/grand_jury.html.
The deadline is April 9.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
San Mateo County: How Did San Carlos Respond to the Grand Jury?
The letter, signed by the Mayor, examines the Grand Jury's findings. - By Kenny Porpora - San Carlos Patch
In a letter signed by Mayor Andy Klein, San Carlos responded to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report.
The letter agreed with most of the grand jury’s findings, disagreeing most heavily with the grand jury’s idea that Cal Fire was a viable option for the city’s fire protection services.
“A majority of the City Council members indicated by a straw poll vote of 3-2 that they do not believe that Cal Fire is a viable alternative for fire protection services by the County and the cities when considering regionalization or outsourcing alternatives,” the letter said.
The letter also partially disagreed with the jury’s note of both San Carlos and Belmont officials’ low expectations for mediation to be a success.
The Grand Jury’s report originally cited ‘missed opportunities’, and said the city’s pursuit of subcontracting with Cal Fire would have been more cost-effective, an option shot down by the Board of Supervisors in favor of reconciliation between San Carlos and then-partner Belmont.
The jury also recommends that Cal Fire be considered as an alternative when assessing changes to local-agency fire protection. San Carlos must respond to the letter by May 15.
On April 12, 2010, San Carlos notified Belmont that it would be ending their 31-year Joint Power Agreement, a separation that had been in the works since 2004. San Carlos’ decision, according to city officials at the time, was a cost-saving measure.
The Grand Jury report notes that the City of Good Living’s fire expenses had increased more than 30 percent between 2005 and 2010, and under the complicated cost-sharing formula it had worked out with Belmont, the city went from paying 47 percent of all costs to 53 percent.
San Carlos and Belmont experienced many failed negotiations and the decision to dissolve the relationship became official.
On September 16, 2010, the city hired TriData Consulting Firm out of Arlington, Va. to analyze options for thee city.
About a month later, TriData submitted an 85-page report to the city, outlining several options, the best of which, they said, would be Cal Fire, due to their ability to hire displaced employees, something other partnering cities could not do.
"That may be a deciding factor, said assistant city manager Brian Moura in October of 2010. "But it may not be. It depends on what the formal and final proposals look like. This is all still in the early stages."
The fire union took concern with Cal Fire's hiring of all fire personnel, however, due to their significantly lower salaries; salaries city employees would inherit should they contract with the county.
According to the Grand Jury report, often times, firefighters salaries are maintained even when picked up by Cal Fire.
Other suggestions from the consultant firm included the city's partnering with neighbor Redwood City, or possibly a three way split among San Carlos, Redwood City, and Cal Fire.
This distribution of services among the three, had it happened, would have limited station and equipment costs and would have allowed for more personnel to be hired, making it possible for the station to respond to more than one call at a time, said assistant city manager Brian Moura, at the time.
San Carlos sent out a call for RFP’s, and sought out proposals from North County Fire, San Mateo, and Menlo Park, in addition to Redwood City and Cal Fire.
On November 19, 2010, the city received a fax from Cal Fire director Ken Pilmott saying Cal Fire will not be submitting a bid for proposal, a decision that has surprised San Carlos officials. “To be successful, it is imperative that there is support for these agreements amongst all the stakeholders, including public officials, local citizens and labor organizations,” said Ken Pimlott, the Cal Fire director in a fax sent to assistant city manager Brian Moura.
“In the case of the City of San Carlos, there is concern from regional Legislative members and significant opposition from local labor organizations. Lacking support from these stakeholders, a proposed partnership could face legal challenges and be cast in a negative light by the media and the community.”
The letter sent concern through government officials, who were expecting a bid from Cal Fire due to previous interest, and an unofficial bid sent back in March of 2010.
“Something changed in the last seven days,” said assistant city manager Brian Moura told San Carlos Patch at the time the letter was sent.
“Cal Fire submitted an unofficial proposal in March of this year, and two others in previous years when we’ve attempted this, so something changed in the last few days and I don’t know what it is.”
On January 17, 2011, city officials sat before the Boards Finance and Operations Committee and asked to contract with Cal Fire. The County instead wanted to see the city work out its relationship wih Belmont. Mediation between the two cities was suggested by Supervisors Carole Groom and Adrienne Tissier.
The city went on to contract with Redwood City after mediation was unsuccessful. The Grand Jury report states that while savings were made, the savings would have been greater had the city been allowed to subcontract with Cal Fire under the county’s contract.
In a letter signed by Mayor Andy Klein, San Carlos responded to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report.
The letter agreed with most of the grand jury’s findings, disagreeing most heavily with the grand jury’s idea that Cal Fire was a viable option for the city’s fire protection services.
“A majority of the City Council members indicated by a straw poll vote of 3-2 that they do not believe that Cal Fire is a viable alternative for fire protection services by the County and the cities when considering regionalization or outsourcing alternatives,” the letter said.
The letter also partially disagreed with the jury’s note of both San Carlos and Belmont officials’ low expectations for mediation to be a success.
The Grand Jury’s report originally cited ‘missed opportunities’, and said the city’s pursuit of subcontracting with Cal Fire would have been more cost-effective, an option shot down by the Board of Supervisors in favor of reconciliation between San Carlos and then-partner Belmont.
The jury also recommends that Cal Fire be considered as an alternative when assessing changes to local-agency fire protection. San Carlos must respond to the letter by May 15.
On April 12, 2010, San Carlos notified Belmont that it would be ending their 31-year Joint Power Agreement, a separation that had been in the works since 2004. San Carlos’ decision, according to city officials at the time, was a cost-saving measure.
The Grand Jury report notes that the City of Good Living’s fire expenses had increased more than 30 percent between 2005 and 2010, and under the complicated cost-sharing formula it had worked out with Belmont, the city went from paying 47 percent of all costs to 53 percent.
San Carlos and Belmont experienced many failed negotiations and the decision to dissolve the relationship became official.
On September 16, 2010, the city hired TriData Consulting Firm out of Arlington, Va. to analyze options for thee city.
About a month later, TriData submitted an 85-page report to the city, outlining several options, the best of which, they said, would be Cal Fire, due to their ability to hire displaced employees, something other partnering cities could not do.
"That may be a deciding factor, said assistant city manager Brian Moura in October of 2010. "But it may not be. It depends on what the formal and final proposals look like. This is all still in the early stages."
The fire union took concern with Cal Fire's hiring of all fire personnel, however, due to their significantly lower salaries; salaries city employees would inherit should they contract with the county.
According to the Grand Jury report, often times, firefighters salaries are maintained even when picked up by Cal Fire.
Other suggestions from the consultant firm included the city's partnering with neighbor Redwood City, or possibly a three way split among San Carlos, Redwood City, and Cal Fire.
This distribution of services among the three, had it happened, would have limited station and equipment costs and would have allowed for more personnel to be hired, making it possible for the station to respond to more than one call at a time, said assistant city manager Brian Moura, at the time.
San Carlos sent out a call for RFP’s, and sought out proposals from North County Fire, San Mateo, and Menlo Park, in addition to Redwood City and Cal Fire.
On November 19, 2010, the city received a fax from Cal Fire director Ken Pilmott saying Cal Fire will not be submitting a bid for proposal, a decision that has surprised San Carlos officials. “To be successful, it is imperative that there is support for these agreements amongst all the stakeholders, including public officials, local citizens and labor organizations,” said Ken Pimlott, the Cal Fire director in a fax sent to assistant city manager Brian Moura.
“In the case of the City of San Carlos, there is concern from regional Legislative members and significant opposition from local labor organizations. Lacking support from these stakeholders, a proposed partnership could face legal challenges and be cast in a negative light by the media and the community.”
The letter sent concern through government officials, who were expecting a bid from Cal Fire due to previous interest, and an unofficial bid sent back in March of 2010.
“Something changed in the last seven days,” said assistant city manager Brian Moura told San Carlos Patch at the time the letter was sent.
“Cal Fire submitted an unofficial proposal in March of this year, and two others in previous years when we’ve attempted this, so something changed in the last few days and I don’t know what it is.”
On January 17, 2011, city officials sat before the Boards Finance and Operations Committee and asked to contract with Cal Fire. The County instead wanted to see the city work out its relationship wih Belmont. Mediation between the two cities was suggested by Supervisors Carole Groom and Adrienne Tissier.
The city went on to contract with Redwood City after mediation was unsuccessful. The Grand Jury report states that while savings were made, the savings would have been greater had the city been allowed to subcontract with Cal Fire under the county’s contract.
Monday, April 2, 2012
CGJA: It's EZ - Get text updates of the Grand Jury News Blog!
by CGJA staff
To keep up with breaking news items of grand jury activity statewide, just text FOLLOW @cgja1 to 40404. Standard text and data rates apply. To stop receiving the text updates, text UNFOLLOW @cgja1 to 40404. Stay informed about your California grand jury system. To learn more about the system, watch AGENTS OF CHANGE.
To keep up with breaking news items of grand jury activity statewide, just text FOLLOW @cgja1 to 40404. Standard text and data rates apply. To stop receiving the text updates, text UNFOLLOW @cgja1 to 40404. Stay informed about your California grand jury system. To learn more about the system, watch AGENTS OF CHANGE.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Marin County's escalating pension costs rooted in 1970s 'scandalous' fiscal deceptions
By Nels Johnson - Marin Independent Journal
An escalating Civic Center pension pricetag that has left Marin County taxpayers facing debt of at least $700 million is rooted in what a grand jury 34 years ago called a "scandalous record" of deception by top officials.
Jurors said key county officials waged a disinformation campaign aimed at replacing Social Security with an "enriched" or enhanced local pension system that benefited top brass while costing taxpayers a bundle.
The full cost of the new program was understated and never funded, with debt estimated at $36 million in 1978 ballooning for years.
Officials at the time, like a number of those who followed, sought to maximize employee benefits while minimizing current costs, shifting the day of financial reckoning far into the future if assumptions proved faulty.
The 1977-78 civil grand jury, in an unusually fiery assessment, excoriated the 1978 Board of Supervisors and top county financial officials who orchestrated the move to drop Social Security benefits in return for enriching the existing county pension program — then already one of the richest in the state.
The action was taken without a financial study after what the jury said was a concerted effort that "borders on fraud" by cheerleading officials who covered up the facts and twisted the truth. Outside experts who warned the new program would benefit those at the top of the pay scale while hurting those at the bottom were ignored.
Workers get stiffed
At the time, employees benefited from both Social Security and a local pension program. But the local system, set up in 1950 under a 1937 state law, "is fundamentally inequitable to the lower-paid worker," Contra Costa County's pension chief said in a 1976 Civic Center forum, adding, "If you want to balance a system you should maintain your Social Security."
Social Security officials also noted then that the Marin system favored higher-paid workers at the expense of the rank and file because its funding formula hinged in large part on pay. Today, about half the cost of the county pension program is generated by several hundred former officials, with 150 retirees getting $100,000 or more a year, and more than 200 others getting annual pensions that exceed the county's average annual pay of $87,500.
But county supervisors were convinced they were doing the right thing; some walked out of or refused to attend board pension sessions led by Supervisor Denis T. Rice. Rice, who won election in 1976 after warning Marin's program was "running in arrears," eventually won concessions that have saved taxpayers $2 million a year since 1980, when he returned to private practice as a lawyer.
At the time, thanks to a 1974 benefit boost by supervisors, employees with 10 years of service could retire at 50, and county Treasurer-Tax Collector Stanley Fontez, head of the pension system, regarded the program as "rich, better than most" in the state, and headed efforts to make it even richer.
The $22 million gap
Auditor-Controller Michael Mitchell, an outspoken elected official, was also sold on the merits of dumping Social Security, contending that over six years it could save employees $9.8 million in take-home pay, while saving taxpayers $2.3 million. But Rice said Mitchell's calculations were based on faulty assumptions, and asserted the move would cost employees and taxpayers "more than $10 million" over six years.
After a bitter, chaotic campaign of conflicting assertions, including tense meetings in which officials sometimes traded angry, insulting commentary, employees in 1977 voted to remain in the Social Security system by a vote of 614 to 599. Supervisors tossed out the vote, saying 138 ballots had been improperly punched, and employees in a second vote bailed out of the system on a tally of 799 to 573.
Employees, whose pay envelopes included leaflets advising them to dump the federal system, agreed to do so in a second vote. Supervisors Robert A. Roumiguiere, Arnold Baptiste and Gary Giacomini voted to withdraw from the federal system and beef up benefits of the local program, despite heated protests from Rice and Barbara Boxer, who noted no financial study had been done.
Rice said that county contributions to the system were artificially low, based on assumptions that kept county costs to a minimum despite big benefits. Although pay is a key factor in determining a pension, county funding was based on an assumption no pay raises would be given. At the same time, the calculations counted on an inflationary environment in which pension investments would earn 6 percent annually.
'This is cataclysmic'
By June 1978, a report by new actuaries concluded that, based on the enriched pension plan and an increase in county salaries of 4.5 percent a year, the program had an unfunded liability of $36 million that could triple, requiring the county to pay $2.3 million to $4.6 million more a year on top of the $3.5 million it already was paying. "This is horrendous. This is bad. This is cataclysmic. Stanley Fontez is guilty of gross ineptitude," Rice exclaimed after the actuary underscored his criticisms. "Fontez should resign."
Fontez stepped down the next month, returning to his home in Grass Valley, but the county never caught up with its pension payments, preferring to boost contributions $328,000 the next year under a "phase in" plan.
The 1977-78 grand jury said the Social Security, enriched local pension saga was reprehensible. "The county, the county employees and the taxpayers have been taken for an expensive ride" by officials more interested in political expediency than fiscal integrity, the panel concluded. "The past conduct of some county officials ... borders on fraud ... the present conduct of other officials ... has been ambiguous at best and irresponsible at worst," the jury declared, saying officials tried to "cover up deception on a large scale."
"The general public should review this scandalous record," the grand jury said, calling for further scrutiny of the "shenanigans" of officials.
Finance officials and county supervisors drew the jury's fire, with Fontez, chief architect of the move to bail from the federal system, singled out for special barbs. Jurors noted he was in line for both an "enriched" county pension and a Social Security check for which he was fully vested.
The report lauded Rice for his "unflagging leadership" in pursuing reform, and although benefits for new hires were cut back in 1980, funding the system continued to be anemic. An independent auditing firm refused to give the system a clean bill of health because it called an assumption regarding minimal inflation too risky.
More than three decades later, the liability Rice warned about had grown to at least $700 million when including retiree health care, under optimistic assumptions that count on a 7.5 percent annual growth in investments — eclipsing the 6 percent that experts including Warren Buffet and bond guru Bill Gross contend is prudent.
Ex-supervisors reflect
Former Supervisor Giacomini, who along with Rice is among the few key players of the 1970s saga still alive, noted that hindsight is always 20-20, and added that the problem with the pension system was not withdrawing from Social Security, but the lack of funding provided by the county over the years.
"It looked really good then," Giacomini recalled of enriching the local program, noting he followed the advice of the county's financial professionals, especially Mitchell, known as a taxpayer advocate, and Roumiguiere, a savvy real estate and business professional.
"The problem is not with us leaving Social Security," Giacomini reflected. "It's that we didn't fund the pension that was approved."
Former Supervisor Rice, who continues 32 years after leaving public office to argue for pension reform in Marin County, said that while a new funding plan was in place when he left office, officials later "returned to their old ways," promising employee benefits but not paying for them.
Today, Rice said, the Marin County Board of Supervisors presides over a pension program that is based on risky assumptions, doesn't have enough money to pay for the benefits it promises and requires future generations of Marin taxpayers to pick up the tab.
"It's just totally unrealistic," Rice said.
Contact Nels Johnson via email at ij.civiccenter@gmail.com
An escalating Civic Center pension pricetag that has left Marin County taxpayers facing debt of at least $700 million is rooted in what a grand jury 34 years ago called a "scandalous record" of deception by top officials.
Jurors said key county officials waged a disinformation campaign aimed at replacing Social Security with an "enriched" or enhanced local pension system that benefited top brass while costing taxpayers a bundle.
The full cost of the new program was understated and never funded, with debt estimated at $36 million in 1978 ballooning for years.
Officials at the time, like a number of those who followed, sought to maximize employee benefits while minimizing current costs, shifting the day of financial reckoning far into the future if assumptions proved faulty.
The 1977-78 civil grand jury, in an unusually fiery assessment, excoriated the 1978 Board of Supervisors and top county financial officials who orchestrated the move to drop Social Security benefits in return for enriching the existing county pension program — then already one of the richest in the state.
The action was taken without a financial study after what the jury said was a concerted effort that "borders on fraud" by cheerleading officials who covered up the facts and twisted the truth. Outside experts who warned the new program would benefit those at the top of the pay scale while hurting those at the bottom were ignored.
Workers get stiffed
At the time, employees benefited from both Social Security and a local pension program. But the local system, set up in 1950 under a 1937 state law, "is fundamentally inequitable to the lower-paid worker," Contra Costa County's pension chief said in a 1976 Civic Center forum, adding, "If you want to balance a system you should maintain your Social Security."
Social Security officials also noted then that the Marin system favored higher-paid workers at the expense of the rank and file because its funding formula hinged in large part on pay. Today, about half the cost of the county pension program is generated by several hundred former officials, with 150 retirees getting $100,000 or more a year, and more than 200 others getting annual pensions that exceed the county's average annual pay of $87,500.
But county supervisors were convinced they were doing the right thing; some walked out of or refused to attend board pension sessions led by Supervisor Denis T. Rice. Rice, who won election in 1976 after warning Marin's program was "running in arrears," eventually won concessions that have saved taxpayers $2 million a year since 1980, when he returned to private practice as a lawyer.
At the time, thanks to a 1974 benefit boost by supervisors, employees with 10 years of service could retire at 50, and county Treasurer-Tax Collector Stanley Fontez, head of the pension system, regarded the program as "rich, better than most" in the state, and headed efforts to make it even richer.
The $22 million gap
Auditor-Controller Michael Mitchell, an outspoken elected official, was also sold on the merits of dumping Social Security, contending that over six years it could save employees $9.8 million in take-home pay, while saving taxpayers $2.3 million. But Rice said Mitchell's calculations were based on faulty assumptions, and asserted the move would cost employees and taxpayers "more than $10 million" over six years.
After a bitter, chaotic campaign of conflicting assertions, including tense meetings in which officials sometimes traded angry, insulting commentary, employees in 1977 voted to remain in the Social Security system by a vote of 614 to 599. Supervisors tossed out the vote, saying 138 ballots had been improperly punched, and employees in a second vote bailed out of the system on a tally of 799 to 573.
Employees, whose pay envelopes included leaflets advising them to dump the federal system, agreed to do so in a second vote. Supervisors Robert A. Roumiguiere, Arnold Baptiste and Gary Giacomini voted to withdraw from the federal system and beef up benefits of the local program, despite heated protests from Rice and Barbara Boxer, who noted no financial study had been done.
Rice said that county contributions to the system were artificially low, based on assumptions that kept county costs to a minimum despite big benefits. Although pay is a key factor in determining a pension, county funding was based on an assumption no pay raises would be given. At the same time, the calculations counted on an inflationary environment in which pension investments would earn 6 percent annually.
'This is cataclysmic'
By June 1978, a report by new actuaries concluded that, based on the enriched pension plan and an increase in county salaries of 4.5 percent a year, the program had an unfunded liability of $36 million that could triple, requiring the county to pay $2.3 million to $4.6 million more a year on top of the $3.5 million it already was paying. "This is horrendous. This is bad. This is cataclysmic. Stanley Fontez is guilty of gross ineptitude," Rice exclaimed after the actuary underscored his criticisms. "Fontez should resign."
Fontez stepped down the next month, returning to his home in Grass Valley, but the county never caught up with its pension payments, preferring to boost contributions $328,000 the next year under a "phase in" plan.
The 1977-78 grand jury said the Social Security, enriched local pension saga was reprehensible. "The county, the county employees and the taxpayers have been taken for an expensive ride" by officials more interested in political expediency than fiscal integrity, the panel concluded. "The past conduct of some county officials ... borders on fraud ... the present conduct of other officials ... has been ambiguous at best and irresponsible at worst," the jury declared, saying officials tried to "cover up deception on a large scale."
"The general public should review this scandalous record," the grand jury said, calling for further scrutiny of the "shenanigans" of officials.
Finance officials and county supervisors drew the jury's fire, with Fontez, chief architect of the move to bail from the federal system, singled out for special barbs. Jurors noted he was in line for both an "enriched" county pension and a Social Security check for which he was fully vested.
The report lauded Rice for his "unflagging leadership" in pursuing reform, and although benefits for new hires were cut back in 1980, funding the system continued to be anemic. An independent auditing firm refused to give the system a clean bill of health because it called an assumption regarding minimal inflation too risky.
More than three decades later, the liability Rice warned about had grown to at least $700 million when including retiree health care, under optimistic assumptions that count on a 7.5 percent annual growth in investments — eclipsing the 6 percent that experts including Warren Buffet and bond guru Bill Gross contend is prudent.
Ex-supervisors reflect
Former Supervisor Giacomini, who along with Rice is among the few key players of the 1970s saga still alive, noted that hindsight is always 20-20, and added that the problem with the pension system was not withdrawing from Social Security, but the lack of funding provided by the county over the years.
"It looked really good then," Giacomini recalled of enriching the local program, noting he followed the advice of the county's financial professionals, especially Mitchell, known as a taxpayer advocate, and Roumiguiere, a savvy real estate and business professional.
"The problem is not with us leaving Social Security," Giacomini reflected. "It's that we didn't fund the pension that was approved."
Former Supervisor Rice, who continues 32 years after leaving public office to argue for pension reform in Marin County, said that while a new funding plan was in place when he left office, officials later "returned to their old ways," promising employee benefits but not paying for them.
Today, Rice said, the Marin County Board of Supervisors presides over a pension program that is based on risky assumptions, doesn't have enough money to pay for the benefits it promises and requires future generations of Marin taxpayers to pick up the tab.
"It's just totally unrealistic," Rice said.
Contact Nels Johnson via email at ij.civiccenter@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)