[Sutter County] Judge sides with Sutter County DA

Grants motion rejecting subpoena for information from unpublished Sutter County grand jury report

A Sutter County judge sided with the District Attorney’s Office on Friday, granting a motion to reject a subpoena for communications related to the unreleased 2017-18 grand jury report.

Defense attorney Jesse Santana served the subpoena for production of evidence on Sutter County Counsel Jean Jordan last fall, requesting “any and all” emails, voicemails, text messages or writing to and from Jordan and District Attorney Amanda Hopper pertaining to the grand jury report, according to Appeal-Democrat archives. 

In Santana’s petition with the Appellate Court last fall, he wrote that he believes the report contains information that would exonerate or provide evidence that would cast doubt on the criminal charges against his client, Danelle Stylos. She is the former Sutter County Development Services director who was arrested in March 2017 on suspicion of perjury, voter fraud, petty theft and filing false information on a concealed carry permit.

The report prepared by the 2017-18 grand jury was withheld from publication, though advanced copies went to some offices. The 17 grand jurors resigned in protest in June, stating they were “prevented from fulfilling our duty as watchdog for Sutter County,” in a letter to Superior Court Judges Brian Aronson and Sarah Heckman.

In August, Ashby denied Santana’s two motions seeking the unpublished report. The state Attorney General’s Office recommended that the Third Appellate District Court of Appeal reject the petition.

In his written motion and in court Friday, Deputy District Attorney Adam McBride argued that the subpoena lacks plausible justification and that the information Santana seeks is “absolutely privileged” with disclosure prohibited by state statute.

“I believe the court should look at this (request) as invasion of privacy of DA Hopper and County Counsel,” McBride told Ashby. “It’s a fishing expedition – he’s trying to cast a wide net in order to get information denied by the court and the court of appeals.”

Santana argued the court’s reasoning, alleging that Stylos’ criminal charges came from Jordan pressuring Hopper.

“It was a witch hunt that (the issues raised by the charges in the case) that should have been handled administratively,” Santana said. “Under the California Constitution, the people, meaning us, the residents of Sutter County, are entitled to this information.”

Ashby interrupted to tell Santana that his allegations against Hopper and Jordan were unsupported as there was no evidence within the subpoena. But, he granted the DA’s motion without prejudice – meaning the subpoena can be refiled, which Santana said he plans to do. 

“I’m confident that what I represented to the court will come out at the preliminary hearing,” Santana told Ashby.

Stylos’ preliminary hearing is scheduled for March 14.

March 1, 2019

Appeal-Democrat

By Rachel Rosenbaum

[Contra Costa County] Methadone clinic can open in Concord after city settles lawsuit

Concord must pay the center $120,000 and the clinic will have to abide by a “security plan”

Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.

CONCORD — After a three-year fight that culminated in a lawsuit against the city last year, an addiction treatment group will be allowed to open a methadone clinic on Solano Way.

Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment (BAART) Programs filed a federal lawsuit against the city last August accusing it of discriminating against people seeking methadone treatment by denying a permit for the clinic, which proposed to provide outpatient substance abuse treatment, including methadone and other medications, as well as counseling to people suffering from opioid addiction.

As part of a settlement, Concord must pay the group $120,000, according to court documents. The clinic in turn will have to abide by a “security plan” that includes hiring a licensed security guard to monitor the treatment area and adjacent parking lot, prohibiting patients from loitering outside and providing them a designated waiting area inside.

While the clinic’s operating hours are expected to be from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. during the week and 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. on weekends, the security plan also forbids the clinic from being open past 9 p.m.

The settlement also requires BAART to identify employees who can act as a liaison with local residents and businesses and participate in regular meetings with the police department. The clinic will have to set up a mechanism — such as a hotline or online portal — to receive feedback and complaints from the public and to host a public open house before it begins operating.

“The City is confident that the required operating conditions, federal oversight, and availability of an effective and well-run treatment center will emphasize Concord’s goal of being a place where families come first,” says a written statement issued by the city, noting that a federal judge will oversee BAART’s compliance with the conditions.

BAART’s effort to open the clinic in Concord began in May 2015 when it sent a letter to the city’s Economic Development Department stating its intention to build a rehab and methadone treatment facility on Parkside Drive. What followed was a long, sometimes contentious process.

The main issue was whether the methadone treatment center should be classified as a medical clinic, a medical office or a social service facility.

The city’s Economic Development Department originally classified the center as a medical office, an allowed use at the site, but city staff later concluded it should be classified as a medical clinic, which isn’t allowed in that zoning district.

BAART consequently identified another site, in Solano Plaza near Highway 242, and signed a lease in October 2017.

The next month, as residents were expressing concern about having a treatment center set up in their neighborhood, Community and Economic Development Director Andrea Ouse designated the clinic as a social service facility, a use that requires an additional administrative permit.

BAART sued the city in August, alleging its decision to change the designation was motivated by the clinic’s intended use as a treatment center for people with substance disorders. It argued the city violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and California civil rights laws, including the Unruh Civil Rights Act, by reclassifying the clinic. Under the ADA, patients seeking care at methadone clinics are considered to have a disability.

BAART operates two other methadone clinics in Contra Costa County — one in Richmond and another in Antioch.

A Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury report last year found there were not enough resources in the county to treat people addicted to opioids. It cited research from the Urban Institute and county healthcare officials that showed in 2015 and 2016 an estimated 54,000 county residents suffered from opioid use disorder.

Last May, Contra Costa joined dozens of other California counties in suing pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors for their alleged role in creating a widespread opioid epidemic.

That lawsuit claimed the opioid epidemic “is particularly devastating” in the county. Citing information from the California Department of Public Health, the lawsuit says that in 2016, Contra Costa County saw 53 deaths from opioids, up from 49 in 2015. In 2014, 50 people died from opioid overdoses and 42 people died in 2013.

March 1, 2019

East Bay Times

By Annie Sciacca

[Fresno County] Grand juries play a vital role, and you can volunteer to be on one

Just after retiring from writing and editing at The Fresno Bee (33 years) and Fresno State (seven), The Bee ran stories encouraging grand jury service.

To be a grand juror, you must be at least 18 years old, a county resident for a year, pass a criminal background check, understand English and have time to conduct thorough, unbiased investigations. I checked all those boxes, had writing and editing skills and also the encouragement (?) of my wife that my newly abundant presence at home wasn’t required 24/7.

After applying, I was interviewed by a judge, underwent a criminal background check and was invited to the empanelment in late June. My name wasn’t called, though. I had to wait until the following year to be seated and then I was held over for a second year and asked to be foreperson.

This isn’t a criminal grand jury that indicts bad folks. The civil grand jury scrutinizes local government, which was part of its appeal to me, although not everyone will find grand jury service appealing.

It’s time consuming, involves many meetings, and can be contentious. You work in a downtown Fresno meeting room that saw better days decades ago. You can’t tell anyone what you’re doing — even after you leave the grand jury. You sign the same financial disclosure statement required of people you investigate. Your compensation is the same paltry $15 a day, mileage reimbursement and free parking provided trial jurors.

From July 1 to June 30, jurors review and investigate complaints from citizens and fellow jurors. They visit jails, airports, law enforcement facilities, public works units and inspect the county’s only state prison — Pleasant Valley near Coalinga.

During investigations, jurors gather evidence, review documents, interview witnesses, draft findings and recommendations and write reports that must be reviewed by the County Counsel’s Office and the presiding judge of the Superior Court.

I appreciated how much I learned about local government, getting along with others and not jumping to conclusions. It’s hugely satisfying to illuminate questionable governance and to praise well-run government entities.

More difficult to live with is that jury recommendations may not be implemented. State law mandates responses 60 or 90 days after a report is published, but civil grand juries cannot compel action nor effectively follow up on responses that typically come after the grand jury no longer is seated.

Grand juries have historically relied on the news media to inform citizens about reports and to follow up on recommendations and on responses promising action.

In 2015, for example there was extensive media coverage of grand jury concerns about possible financial impropriety by the Parlier Unified School District superintendent.

District trustees dismissed the superintendent. Voters made school board changes. State investigators reported on numerous issues that the district has moved to remedy. Recently, the former superintendent was charged with misusing public funds.

However, coverage of grand jury reports and local government has declined with newsroom cutbacks. The 2017-18 grand jury report critical of Fresno County’s oversight of special tax-supported districts didn’t attract media coverage, although the county has 129 special districts — running everything from mosquito abatement to cemeteries — that take in millions of taxpayer dollars each year.

I doubt most of us know what they do with our money — or even what some do at all.

Since follow-up is key, the Fresno County chapter of the California Grand Jurors’ Association, made up of former grand jurors, hopes to better publicize grand jury reports and whether promised action has occurred.

Holding local government to account is an important and rewarding part of citizenship, which is why I’m reapplying and encouraging everyone to consider grand jury service.

March 1, 2019

The Fresno Bee

By Lanny Larson, resident of Clovis and president of the Fresno County Grand Jurors’ Association

[Monterey County] Fight over flights

State opens investigation into Pacific Grove city manager’s discounted travel

Blog note: this article references a 2018 grand jury report.

The state Fair Political Practices Commission has opened an investigation into allegations that the Pacific Grove city manager failed to disclose a gift of discounted air flights on his statements of economic interests.

The allegations were first made public in a report by the Monterey County grand jury last year. The grand jury looked into several  issues surrounding the doomed Project Bella development, an effort to build a 160-suite luxury hotel at the site of the American Tin Cannery building, across the street from the Monterey Bay Aquarium at 125 Ocean View Blvd.

Among its findings, the grand jury determined that the city spent more than $100,000 to assist the developer, Domaine Pacific Grove, on expenses that were never reimbursed. Voters in Pacific Grove had approved rezoning of the Tin Cannery site, which opened the doors for the development in 2016, and the city fronted the expenses for much of the preliminary planning work, with the expectation that the developer would reimburse those expenses.

But Domaine’s permit for the property expired in February 2017 and the developer’s lease with the property owner expired several months later. A new developer has reportedly expressed interest in doing something with the site, but no proposal has been submitted to the city. The grand jury’s investigation was an effort to determine how such a promising proposal ended so badly and so quickly.

The grand jury also reported that City Manager Ben Harvey, who at the time was the interim city manager, was a close friend of Jared Ficker, an associate of the developer who was doing business on behalf of Domaine. Harvey regularly commuted from the Monterey Peninsula to his home in Los Angeles County using Ficker’s corporate membership at Surf Air, a private air service operating out of San Jose. How those flights were paid for, by whom and to whom and how much of the value of those flights should be considered a “gift,” are items of some confusion — and the issue is at the heart of the Fair Political Practices Commission investigation.

At issue is whether an arrangement City Manager Ben Harvey had with Jared Ficker and Surf Air constituted a “gift” that should have been included in the city manager’s financial disclosure statements.

Careful in its wording, the grand jury found that Harvey “displayed a lack of sensitivity to the appearance of a conflict of interest created by joining Jared Ficker’s group membership in Surf Air.” A number of Pacific Grove residents grew suspicious after the commute arrangement became known to the public. “While there is nothing illegal about this,” the grand jury reported, “the appearance of a conflict of interest was inescapable.”

But the complaint to the FPPC, filed by Pacific Grove attorney Jane Haines, alleges that Harvey’s actions may have violated public disclosure regulations.

Harvey told Voices of Monterey Bay that Haines has been pursuing the issue in different venues for years. The FPPC complaint is her second attempt to get the FPPC to look into it. “This is her fourth bite of the apple at this point,” Harvey said. “I absolutely, 100 percent, vehemently disagree with her, and at this point this borders on harassment.”

Haines said she is pursuing the issue at the invitation of the city. Then-Mayor Bill Kampe and the City Council “told me that if I have evidence of wrongdoing, I should take it to the authorities, and that is what I did,” she said.

At issue is whether an arrangement Harvey had with Ficker and Surf Air constituted a “gift” that should have been included in the city manager’s financial disclosure statements. Haines’ complaint said the arrangement was indeed a gift because Harvey received a discounted rate not available to others. However, Harvey’s employment contract with the city includes reimbursement of $3,000 for housing and transportation costs. Nevertheless, Haines argues that Harvey’s travel and housing costs sometimes exceeded the allowance, so the reduced cost of his Surf Air membership constituted a personal financial break.

The grand jury looked into the same issue, and its report concluded that Harvey’s arrangement with Surf Air and Ficker was an “inescapable” appearance of a conflict of interest, even if there was nothing illegal about it. If nothing else, the grand jury seemed baffled over why Harvey would opt for the Surf Air flights, since direct commercial flights out of the Monterey Airport would have been more convenient and would have spared Harvey the Uber expenses he was incurring to get to Santa Clara County. “Commercial travel would have been much less expensive, and a great deal more convenient,” according to the grand jury report.

In the end, the grand jury issued 26 separate “facts” about the city’s handling of Project Bella, 15 “findings,” and eight recommendations. It recommended the City Council take another look at its contract with Harvey, especially in regards to its reimbursement for travel expenses.

The city’s formal response to the grand jury, submitted in August, dismisses, rejects or argues against virtually every finding and recommendation contained in the report, particularly in regards to the allegations regarding Harvey and Surf Air. The city’s response pointed out that the cost of private air travel versus commercial jets isn’t even relevant. Harvey was given a monthly allowance from the city to cover both transportation and housing. “The amount was part of his compensation and available for him to use at his discretion — for travel and housing,” the city response states. “Any spending more than the allowance would be a personal expense and not a cost to the city.”

Haines asked the Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate the ties between Harvey and Ficker, and her argument that Harvey should have disclosed the “gift” of discounted membership with Surf Air. Her initial request was rejected, but she re-submitted her complaint in January to include more information and potential evidence.

The Fair Political Practices Commission was established in 1974 by voters in California to regulate and enforce campaign finance, lobbying activity and conflict of interest at all levels of government in the state.

In her complaint to the FPPC, Haines alleges that Harvey violated public reporting laws when he failed to “disclose the economic benefit he received from Mr. Ficker’s gift to him of discounted membership in Surf Air.” According to the complaint, an individual membership cost for Surf Air services was $1,950, but Harvey paid Ficker $1,375 a month to be included in Ficker’s corporate membership.

Last month Haines was notified by the FPPC that the additional information was sufficient “to reopen this matter.”

At the time Project Bella was being debated in the Pacific Grove, the city hired a law firm to look into public charges and complaints about the way the project was being handled by public officials. The resulting report, by the law firm Jackson Lewis, was never made public; instead the investigator presented a PowerPoint presentation to the City Council with the conclusion that there had been no malfeasance.

When first contacted by Voices this week, Harvey said he was not aware that the FPPC investigation had been initiated. He earlier had contact with FPPC administrators when Haines filed the first complaint last year, but said the latest notification he received from the FPPC went unnoticed in his email queue.

He said he was surprised that Haines continues to push the issue. “I really don’t know why on earth she would continue with this after it continues to be disproved,” he said. “It is a bit frustrating.”

February 28, 2019

Voices of Monterey Bay

By Joe Livernois

[Napa County] What is the 'Highest and Best Use' for the Napa County Fairgrounds?

Blog note: this opinion piece references a 2017 grand jury report.

Two years ago, there was great optimism in the community that the County of Napa and the City of Calistoga would find a way to cooperate and co-manage this 70-acre public property for public benefit. Such a partnership could have provided a welcome synergy of efforts, resulting in the “transformation” that the 2017 Grand Jury Report called for, “from a Fairgrounds in serious and deteriorating disrepair...into a vital addition to the upper Napa Valley community.”

Many of us had hoped that such a synergy of effort would result in a property that could, for example, answer the need of Calistoga to find a location for the disaster-hardened civic infrastructure it has needed for so long, while also providing the county the opportunity to fulfill its longstanding goal of improving access to county services for Upvalley residents.

How disappointing it is, then, that the original scenario of two local public agencies pooling their resources and efforts to do what is best for this property and the county’s residents has given way to a sort of "robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul" scenario, in which the two local public agencies, with a common property tax base, cannot agree on who-gets-what, and at what price. Something that was originally conceived as a co-investment for the common good has devolved to a sticky real estate transaction.

To move past this impasse, perhaps all interested parties should consider resolving any outstanding disagreements based on a guiding principle of “highest and best use.”

The criteria for determining "highest value" of this unique public asset should not be limited to dollars and cents alone. To do so would be shortsighted and a great disservice to the property's history, tradition, and civic potential.

It is thanks to the taxpayers of Napa County and the state of California that the Fairgrounds has been public property since 1938, but if not for the foresight and generosity of 16 Calistoga residents, the property might not have become available for public ownership in the first place.

In 1935, these Calistogans pitched in $200 each to buy 30 acres of land on the west edge of town. They named the new parcel “Silverado Park” and created the Calistoga Fair Association to take title to the property and manage it. Three years later, after conducting three increasingly successful annual events called the Silverado Trail Festival and Fair, the Association sold the property to the County of Napa -- not for profit, but so that the land would be eligible for state funding as an official site for a County Fair.

During the 1940s and 1950s, the Tubbs and Butler buildings, along with other improvements, were built using state funds. State funding ceased in 2011 with the economic downturn. But even for decades before that, the lion’s share of operating funds for the Fairgrounds was generated onsite, through year-round events and facility rentals, a racetrack, golf course, RV park, and of course, an annual Napa County Fair that has been held for the past 83 years (with the exception of three years during World War II). In all that time, the County of Napa has incurred minimal expense for ownership, maintenance or management of its Fairgrounds.

Rather than partnering, the county now wishes to sell the property, and the City of Calistoga is a willing buyer, although one with limited means. The two elected bodies are at an impasse, it seems, over the question, “What is the property worth?” It is a question that should be of interest to all Napa County residents, and one that should take into account a variety of measures of “value.” For example:

-- What is the value of maintaining the tradition and incomparable public setting for the recognition and celebration of our county’s rural agricultural heritage?

-- What is the value of protecting the largest section of Napa River public access in the upper two-thirds of the valley, a quarter-mile riparian corridor, rich in habitat, biodiversity, and archaeological history?

-- What is the value of finally having a site available to adequately address the need “for future service locations in the North County,” a stated goal of the County’s Facilities Space Needs Analysis?

-- What is the value of having a public “lifeboat” facility available for times of great need, one that for decades has proven capable of supporting thousands of disaster evacuees and their animals, first responders, utility repair crews, and others?

-- What is the value of retaining the largest piece of public open space on the Napa Valley floor?

I would submit to you that none of these questions can be answered with a number, but they can all be answered with the same word: Priceless.

Please resolve your differences and find a way to save this priceless public asset for its highest and best use:  as public land for public benefit forever hereafter.

February 24, 2019

Napa Valley Register

By Dana Cole, past director, Napa County Fair Association 

[Alameda County] Embattled Peralta College chancellor takes ‘early retirement’

Jowel Laguerre has led the four-college district since 2015

Blog note: This article references a 2015 Solano County grand jury report.

OAKLAND — Jowel Laguerre is out as chancellor of the Peralta Community College District.

The Peralta college board on Friday evening voted unanimously to “accept an early retirement” from Laguerre.

Trustees met in closed session for more than three hours before announcing the agreement to an empty board room. A statement read by board President Julina Bonilla said Laguerre will go on leave beginning March 1.

“The board president has been working with the chancellor for several months to prepare the district for a transition,” according to the statement. His interim replacement will be appointed at a March 5 trustee meeting.

Bonilla declined to discuss what led the board to its decision; Laguerre’s contract, which includes about $300,000 in annual pay plus benefits, does not expire until 2020. Last year, Peralta trustees extended his contract for two years.

Dissatisfaction with his leadership style, budget priorities and accusations of mishandling taxpayer money have grown among faculty and district watchdogs over the past year. Peralta’s fiscal health also has worsened, as student enrollment dropped during Laguerre’s tenure.

Before voters in November passed a $48 per-parcel tax, Michael Mills, the former chairman of a district watchdog panel, accused the district of misusing tax dollars from prior measures and said he did not trust the chancellor “for a second.” More recently, faculty senates at Laney and Berkeley City College each approved a vote of no confidence in Laguerre endorsed by the Peralta Federation of Teachers and called for his resignation.

Last week, the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission recommended fining Peralta $2,000 for a 2017 holiday card featuring Laguerre and trustees that was “designed, printed, and distributed” by the district, in violation of state government code.

Laguerre did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It was not clear if Laguerre will receive a severance package or continue working in another position for the remainder of his contract. According to that document, the board may terminate the agreement with or without cause.

Peralta Federation of Teachers president Jennifer Shanoski said the union is “relieved and grateful to the board for acting on the many concerns that we’ve raised over the past couple of years.”

“Looking forward, we are hopeful that PCCD can move ahead with leadership that reflects the values and prioritizes the needs of the faculty, staff and the students that we serve,” she said.

Laguerre was hired in 2015 after serving as president at Solano Community College since 2009. While he was at Solano, a civil grand jury criticized the college district for “misleading and contradictory” language on a $348 million bond measure. The grand jury report was released just as Laguerre was leaving to lead Peralta.

February 22, 2019

The Mercury News

By David DeBolt

[Tuolumne County] Elected officials respond to Union Democrat investigation

Blog note: This article continues the Union Democrat’s reporting on the criticism of the Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority that started with the release of a grand jury report in June 2018.

The Union Democrat’s report from Tuesday about how the Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority spent more than $100,000 of taxpayer money in 2017 and 2018 on travel and other expenses confirmed to some local elected officials that the agency’s reputation was damaged beyond repair.

Several county supervisors and members of the Sonora City Council said in interviews on Wednesday and Thursday that they felt the story illustrated how important it is for a government agency to maintain the public’s trust. Others said they hadn’t read it, or didn’t respond to inquiries.

“I had my own feelings already, but I just felt like with all of that information, that the authority had sort of irreparably lost the public trust,” said Councilwoman Colette Such.

Such said she was surprised at the freedom given to the TCEDA’s chief executive officer, Larry Cope, when it came to the organization’s expense account.

Among the findings from the report were that Cope bought at least one meal at taxpayer expense on almost every working day in 2017 and the first half of 2018, attended conferences in places like Boston and San Francisco where he stayed in hotels that sometimes cost more than $700 a night, and spent thousands of dollars on other purchases, including a drone, night vision camera and three Microsoft Surface tablets in the span of 18 months.

The report also found that most of the meals Cope purchased with public funds were for meetings with local politicians, government officials, and members of the TCEDA Governing Board, as opposed to clients and business prospects.

Such put much of the blame on the authority’s board for a lack of oversight.

“What was asked of them is what’s asked of all boards,” she said. “You always have a fiduciary responsibility with public money and donor money, always.”

The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors voted to dissolve the TCEDA at a public meeting the same morning the newspaper’s report was published and hours after the story had been posted online.

District 3 Supervisor Anaiah Kirk said he had heard about the article but didn’t get a chance to read it before the board meeting, so it didn’t affect his decision to vote in favor of dissolving the TCEDA.

Kirk said when he read the story after the meeting was over, it confirmed his belief that the policies governing any future economic development efforts need to be stronger.

“There’s been too much leniency with that agency,” he said.

Kirk added, however, that he can’t hold someone responsible if they didn’t violate any policies. Cope was allowed to sign his own expense reports and overrule almost every limitation in the TCEDA’s Travel and Business Expense Policy, which the authority’s board approved in 2009.

The main reason Kirk cited for voting in favor of dismantling the TCEDA was his belief that the city was eventually going to end the partnership after ongoing audits of the authority’s management practices and finances were complete.

At the meeting, Kirk described the situation with the agency as “high school on steroids,” which he clarified on Thursday was in reference to what he viewed as personal issues that some members of the public had with Cope.

District 2 Supervisor Ryan Campbell said the story had an impact on his decision to vote in favor of ending the partnership between the city and county, which was forged through a joint powers agreement in late 2008.

Campbell said he believed the story illustrated “poor judgment” on behalf of both the TCEDA board and Cope, and that shutting it down was the best choice given the damage to the authority’s public image.

“Once you’ve lost the public trust in that agency, it becomes extremely difficult — if not impossible — for that agency to do its job,” he said. “We’ve seen that recently with the EDA.”

County officials have said requests for public records related to the TCEDA have occupied hundreds of hours of their time since the Tuolumne County Civil Grand Jury released a report at the end of June that raised concerns about the agency’s management practices.

Cope has said that about 75 percent of his time as of late has been spent responding to requests and dealing with the ongoing audits that were launched last year as a result of the jury’s report.

“The whole mess has been a colossal waste of time and money for taxpayers,” Campbell said.

District 1 Supervisor Sherri Brennan, who has served on the authority’s board since January 2017, said the amount of county resources being used on TCEDA-related matters was her reason for voting in favor of withdrawing from the agreement with the city.

Brennan said on Wednesday that she had not read the story on the agency’s expenses.

District 4 Supervisor John Gray and District 5 Supervisor Karl Rodefer did not respond to requests for comment on the story. Gray has served on the TCEDA board since 2011 and as its chairman since 2014.

Some city council members said the unanimous decision by all five county supervisors to end the TCEDA caught them by surprise.

The council had a meeting Tuesday afternoon where it was originally scheduled to consider a request from the board for more time to complete the TCEDA audits.

There was a deadline on March 1 for either the city or county to decide if they wanted to remain a part of the TCEDA for another fiscal year, which was extended from Jan. 1 at the request of the council late last year.

Mayor Jim Garaventa, who appointed himself to the TCEDA board after the jury’s report was released, said he was under the impression that the county was going to extend the deadline by another month and didn’t anticipate supervisors to take the action they did.

“I was expecting they were going to, and had been told that they were going to, extend the audits by another month,” he said. “When they changed their mind and got out of the EDA, it changed the dynamic.”

Councilman Mark Plummer was the only member who didn’t attend the meeting on Tuesday because he went to help his father with some projects in Southern California and believed they would simply be passing a resolution to extend the deadline for the audits.

Plummer said he read the story on the TCEDA’s expenses while in Southern California and was surprised by some of the information, but he couldn’t say whether that would have affected his decision.

“Once the Board of Supervisors elected to get out of the relationship, I would have been all for doing the same from the city’s perspective,” he said. “If we’re not working together, then it’s not going to work at all.”

Councilwoman Connie Williams served on the TCEDA board from July 2016 through June 2018, during which she called for a committee to be formed to take a deeper look at the authority’s finances after questioning some of the spending.

Williams said she wasn’t surprised by the information presented in the story because of what she saw while on the board, but there was more to it than she previously thought.

Councilman Matt Hawkins said he wasn’t surprised at the information contained in the article on Tuesday because he had researched some of the expenses himself before its publication.

Hawkins couldn’t say whether the story would have impacted his view of continuing with the partnership had the board not voted to end it earlier that day, but he would have used it to bolster whichever decision he made.

“At least I could have pointed to it and said here’s the cost, here’s what’s going on, and here’s why I voted this way,” he said.

February 22, 2019

The Union Democrat

By Alex MacLean

[Tuolumne County] TCEDA board to discuss termination of CEO’s contract

Blog note: This article continues the Union Democrat’s reporting on this issue related to a grand jury report.

Terminating the employment contract for the Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority’s chief executive officer will be among the many things subject to negotiations between the county and City of Sonora over the coming weeks.

This comes after county and city elected officials voted unanimously on Tuesday to begin the process of dismantling the TCEDA, which was created in late 2008 through a joint powers agreement between the two governments.

Their decision to end the partnership followed revelations about the management practices and spending by TCEDA Executive Director Larry Cope, which were originally brought to light in a report by the Tuolumne County Civil Grand Jury released at the end of June.
The Union Democrat also conducted an extensive review of the TCEDA’s travel and expense records from the previous two years and published the findings on Tuesday, which included that Cope spent more than $100,000 over that period on trips, meals with mostly county officials, and other purchases.

County Counsel Sarah Carrillo said her office, which serves as the TCEDA’s primary legal adviser, is still wrapping their heads around all of the authority’s outstanding legal obligations that will have to be addressed as part of the dissolution process.

“That’s what we’re looking at right now,” she said.

Among the obligations Carrillo listed are leases for offices in downtown Sonora and Groveland, a contract with the Modesto-based Valley Sierra Small Business Development for consulting and outreach, and Cope’s employment contract.

Cope’s employer is the TCEDA Governing Board, as opposed to the city or county, and the board will no longer be a legal entity after the dissolution process is complete. He did not respond on Wednesday to a request for comment about what he plans to do next.

The terms of the contract stated that Cope is entitled to six months severance pay if the TCEDA board chooses to terminate it before the end of the agreed upon period of employment, which was amended in May 2018 to run through April 6, 2023.

There’s also a provision requiring the board or Cope to give 90-day notice if either wants to terminate the contract prematurely, which Carrillo said will be one of the things her office will have to get direction on from the TCEDA board.

“I think there’s probably some room to negotiate and make some changes to that, but that’s still direction we will need,” Carrillo said.

Cope earns an annual base salary $163,625. County administrator, health officer and psychiatrist are the only positions out of 441 that have a salary range higher than Cope’s, according to the county’s salary schedules.

County Administrator Tracie Riggs, who replaced Craig Pedro in January and is the first woman to hold the position, currently earns a base salary that’s about $3,000 a year less than Cope’s but is subject to annual increases that would eventually push her’s higher.

Carrillo said she believes the Ralph M. Brown Act, the California law that governs meetings of public entities like the TCEDA, allows the authority’s board to negotiate the termination of Cope’s contract in open session or appoint a labor negotiator to negotiate with him in private.

The board could negotiate directly with Cope at a public meeting because he’s considered an unrepresented employee, according to Carrillo, though he receives the same health and retirement benefits as other top county officials who are part of the executive/confidential labor unit.

Cope’s contract also grants him a $500-per-month car allowance and $200-per-month stipend for a cell phone and Internet, perks that most other county officials don’t receive.

Carrillo clarified that Cope couldn’t be automatically converted into a county employee. She said the Board of Supervisors would be required to first approve a job description for the new position and open it for recruitment.

If the board hired Cope as a county employee, Carrillo couldn’t say whether that would affect his severance package because the TCEDA is a totally separate legal entity from the city and county.

“I can’t say for certain whether or not it would, just that it has completely separate obligations,” she said.

City Attorney Douglas White said on Tuesday that the city would like to dissolve the TCEDA by the end of this month to save more taxpayer money from being spent on an agency that both governments believe should no longer exist.

City Administrator Tim Miller said the cost to the city is more than $8,000 for each additional month it remains operating.

Carrillo said the timeframe by the end of the month wasn’t realistic due to the amount of work still to be done. The Sonora City Council directed White to work with her and determine a deadline, which he plans to present to the council for approval at its next meeting on March 4.

“If we can do as much as possible in 30 days, that would be ideal,” Carrillo said on Wednesday. “I don’t know if that’s realistic … I want to be thorough in wrapping it up, and sometimes when you move too fast you’re not as thorough as you could be.”

The TCEDA board will meet at 9:30 a.m. Thursday and consider an urgency item to give direction on the process of dissolving the entity to Carrillo and her team. She said it’s unlikely they will cover everything and may have to hold special meetings in the coming weeks.

There will also be a closed session discussion about one case of “anticipated litigation,” which was put on the agenda days before the decision to dissolve the entity on Tuesday.

Carrillo could not discuss what the anticipated litigation is, other than that she wasn’t aware that anything has been filed with the court yet. Tuolumne County Superior Court records didn’t show any recently filed lawsuits against the TCEDA or Cope on Wednesday.

The Economic Prosperity Council of Tuolumne County, the nonprofit arm of the TCEDA, will also meet after the board’s meeting and discuss one case of anticipated litigation in closed session.

The council’s board is comprised of the same members of the TCEDA board, which currently consists of District 4 Supervisor John Gray, District 1 Supervisor Sherri Brennan, Sonora Mayor and Councilman Jim Garaventa, Councilman Matt Hawkins, and at-large members Barry Hillman and Ron Patel.

It will be the first meeting as a member of the TCEDA board for Patel, the former CEO of Black Oak Casino Resort, who was appointed to replace former longtime board member Jim Gianelli in November.

Carrillo said her office has not represented the nonprofit organization in any legal matters up to this point, though she said it was unclear to her what happen if the TCEDA board decides they also want to dissolve the council.

February 20, 2019

The Union Democrat

By Alex MacLean

[Alameda County] Richard Valle's Dual Allegiances

Elected supervisor from southern Alameda County also lobbies for recycling firm.

Blog note: this article references the Alameda County Grand Jury in a rather unusual way.

Five minutes before a sparsely attended Hayward City Council meeting two weeks ago, Richard Valle approached city officials just settling into their seats. Valle, the city's representative on the county Board of Supervisors, shook hands with a few and engaged in brief chit-chat. Then about 20 minutes later Valle, who also is President/CEO of the Union City non-profit recycling company Tri-CED, asked the city to approve a $2.20 average increase in recycling rates.

The council also approved a special request from Valle to let his company ship some unusable recycling materials to Pakistan for six months — a significant exemption from the city's longstanding environmental principles.

Valle's dual allegiances appear rife with potential ethical conflicts, primarily that of a powerful county supervisor lobbying cities in his own district on matters that affect his company's financial interests. As supervisor, he frequently casts votes that could benefit or penalize the cities he also appears before as CEO. While there is no evidence that he has used his power illegally or inappropriately, his oversized role in funding city safety services and affordable housing grants is clear.

"Every year a grand a jury is seated and every year I have this conversation," Valle said after last week's council meeting, referring to the Alameda County civil grand jury. "I've asked the same question to our general counsel, because I don't want to have any conflict."

From Hayward's perspective, there is no conflict because Valle's recycling company subcontracts to Waste Management, and therefore taxpayers are not directly paying Tri-CED, Hayward City Attorney Michael Lawson said.

However, former Oakland deputy attorney Mark Morodomi said Valle and other elected officials who also hold private-sector jobs have to maintain clear lines between both positions. "He has a right to have a personal business as long as he keeps it personal," Morodomi said.

While Morodomi believes Valle does not possess a clear conflict of interest, he disagrees that being a city subcontractor protects Valle. "The fact he's a subcontractor is not a lifesaver," Morodomi said. "Everyone knows the money is eventually flowing to his company."

When Valle addressed the Hayward City Council Feb. 5, several elected officials appeared to deliberately avoid referring to him as supervisor. One councilmember did so before quickly correcting herself, calling Valle the president/CEO of Tri-CED.

But Valle himself blurred the lines separating his two roles when he referenced his advocacy at the county level for an effort to lobby Gov. Gavin Newsom on growing concerns about a new Chinese recycling policy. Small-time U.S. recycling companies have been bedeviled by the policy, which was enacted last year.

"This industry is impacted statewide, nationwide and worldwide and the setbacks we're seeing is because of a lack of leadership," he said. "Nobody is championing this issue."

Valle had cited the onerous recycling policy as a pretext for the Hayward rate increase. The Personnel, Administration, and Legislation Committee of the Board of Supervisors last week backed the effort to take the issue to Sacramento. When asked about his dual allegiances, he said, "If I worried about what other people thought, I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing."

Valle's request to increase Hayward's recycling rate by a total of 2.6 percent was roughly in line with the rate increased granted in the past few years. But his additional request to grant Tri-CED a six-month waiver to send leftover recycling material known as "unders" to Pakistan — which the council approved, 6-1, last week — is a deviation from the council's recent push for environmental sustainability and also presents a negative impact on the city's overall landfill diversion rate. Councilmembers regularly express their commitment to environment sustainability. The motto, "Keep Hayward Clean and Green" has long been a motto that also includes its own standing council committee.

Furthermore, Valle admitted not knowing whether the material will ultimately end up in a landfill overseas. "I don't know what happens on the other end," he said.

When asked by a councilmember why the material could not be sent to a recycling facility in Oregon, Valle said the cost would be prohibitive and delivery slow. Environmental regulations in the United States allow Tri-CED to send just one large shipping container full of material to Oregon, while operators in Pakistan will accept 20 such containers. Councilmember Aisha Wahab, the one official to vote against the six-month waiver, objected on the grounds that Hayward would be "dirtying up" another country.

Valle said large companies like Waste Management can subsidize recycling programs unlike their smaller competitors such as Tri-CED.

There's also the question of how Valle is physically able to serve as the CEO of a company while holding one of the most demanding jobs in Alameda County government. "I start at 4 a.m.; I'm going back to the office right now," Valle said following the Hayward council meeting, which concluded just after 9 p.m. "I do my very best at both of my professions and I do my absolutely to keep my nose clean."

Before serving as supervisor, Valle was a former Union City mayor and councilmember. Tri-CED also has a recycling contract with Union City which is due for renewal this summer. Union City expects roughly the same $2.20 rate increase request from Tri-CED.

After securing the rate increase and six-month window to divert recycling materials to South Asian, several Hayward councilmembers and department heads again exchanged pleasantries with Valle after the meeting. Wahab approached Valle and said, "Are you upset? Sorry I couldn't support the last part." No, said Valle. "Philosophically I don't mind. I can only give you the facts."

February 19, 2019

East Bay Express

By Steven Tavares 

[Tuolumne County] Unanimous: TCEDA dissolved

Blog note: The Union Democrat has been reporting on this issue for months following a grand jury report about TCEDA. This is the latest of many articles posted here.

Tuolumne County supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday morning to dissolve the Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority and end its partnership with the City of Sonora that was forged in late 2008.

The Sonora City Council voted 4-0 to withdraw and begin the process of shutting down the authority. Councilman Mark Plummer was absent.

One point of contention was how soon the authority will cease to exist.

City Attorney Douglas White recommended a deadline by the end of this month because it doesn’t make sense to continue giving taxpayer money to an agency that both governments agree should be shut down.

“If we mutually agree that it shouldn’t exist, we want to save as much money for taxpayers as we can,” White said.

County Counsel Sarah Carrillo addressed the council and said the recommended deadline wasn’t realistic because a number of issues need to be resolved, including any contracts, leases, and the potential severance package for Larry Cope, executive director of the TCEDA since shortly after its inception and currently its only employee.

Carrillo said she plans to discuss some of the process of dissolution at the TCEDA board meeting scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Thursday.

The council ultimately accepted White’s suggestion to give him permission to meet with Carrillo and work out a mutually agreeable deadline, which he will then present to the council for approval at its next meeting on March 4.

Cope, who did not attend either meeting Tuesday, told The Union Democrat in an email prior to the council meeting that he had no comment on the board’s decision at this time.

His employment contract entitles him to up to six months severance pay if it’s terminated before the end of the agreed upon period, which is currently through April 6, 2023. The TCEDA board and Cope must give 90 days notice if either one wants to terminate the contract, according to the terms.

Cope is one of the highest paid employees in county government and receives a salary of $163,625 a year, in addition to health and retirement benefits, 40 days of vacation, and $8,400 in stipends for a car and cell phone.

Councilwoman Colette Such asked White about Cope’s severance package, which could be more than $80,000 under the terms of the contract.

White responded that Cope’s severance pay will have to be negotiated through the process of dissolving the authority and could be affected if the county decides to hire him as an employee for economic development efforts without the city.

District 1 Supervisor Sherri Brennan, who has served on the TCEDA board since January 2017, said in an interview prior to the council meeting that she would like to see Cope remain a part of the county’s future economic development efforts.

“I think he’s been effective at getting businesses to Tuolumne County,” she said.

Brennan also addressed the council Tuesday afternoon and said she doesn’t believe the board will draw out the process because the county wants to be as efficient with taxpayer dollars as possible, too.

County pulls the plug

Some county supervisors during the board meeting earlier in the day pointed the blame for the TCEDA’s demise on the city council, personal attacks against Cope, and a barrage of requests for public records that are occupying most of his and county staff’s time.

“I am very regretful it has come to this,” said District 5 Supervisor Karl Rodefer, who serves as board chairman. “This is what happens when people do personal attacks on good people. I do believe Larry Cope is a good person who has done good things for this county, and I believe undoubtedly the economic development authority has done good things for this county.”

Rodefer also pointed blame on the TCEDA Governing Board and said, “If you’ve got a problem with the economic development authority, then you’ve got a problem with the board and the process.”

District 4 Supervisor John Gray, who has served on TCEDA board since 2011 and as its chairman since 2014, said he hated to see the authority end this way but believes it’s time for the county to do economic development without the city.

“Their contribution of 20 percent in the overall is quite small when you consider the amount of money that the county also infuses as far as legal counsel and HR,” he said of the other county departments that provide assistance to the TCEDA for free.

The board went into a closed session after the vote to discuss another matter.

Afterward, Gray declined to say what happens now with Cope’s job. He said he’s “fed up with economic development right now and moving onto the next subject.”

In response to a question from Supervisor Anaiah Kirk at the board meeting, Carrillo said her office has dedicated more than 300 hours to dealing with public records requests and other matters involving the TCEDA.

Carrillo said that would be about $38,000 if they billed the TCEDA for that time, which they do not.

The office has responded to 17 formal requests for information under the California Public Records Act since the Tuolumne County Civil Grand Jury released a report at the end of June about its investigation of the TCEDA.

Cope has said he spends as much 75 percent of his time now responding to the requests, as opposed to bringing economic development to the city and county.

Auditor-Controller Debi Bautista said her office had also spent about 250 hours on requests since that time. She added that included responding to a request for information from The Union Democrat during her day off on Monday.

Kirk said he wanted to see the authority stay intact and tighten its policies, but he said the drama surrounding it has become like “high school on steroids.”

“I think the writing’s on the wall, and if the city isn’t going to make a decision, we need to make the decision for them,” Kirk said before voting to withdraw from the joint powers agreement that formed the authority.

Almost all of the authority’s $460,000 a year annual budget is funded by taxpayer money from both governments. The city pays 23 percent, while the county covers the rest.

According to the joint powers agreement, if the county, city or both decides to withdraw, then all debts and advances of the authority will be paid and property will be divided between the county and city based on how much each has invested.

District 2 Supervisor Ryan Campbell said he found the current situation with the TCEDA “disappointing.”

After the meeting, Campbell said he was disappointed because he believed the authority started with the best intentions and had some early success before losing the public’s trust due to the way it was being managed.

Campbell said breaking from the agreement with the city now was the best of two bad options, because the county would have less time to come up with an alternate plan if the city decided to end the partnership later on.

“If that’s the direction we’re going, it’s best to rip the Band-Aid off now,” he said.

Barbara Dresslar, of Sonora, urged county supervisors to shut down the TCEDA prior to their vote Tuesday morning.

Dresslar talked about a review by The Union Democrat of Cope’s travel and expense records that found he had spent over $100,000 in 2017 and 2018 on trips, almost daily meals, and other purchases, including multiple computer tablets, a night vision camera and drone.

“Our local newspaper had to file through the California Public Records Act to bring the truth to our community about how TCEDA is wasting our community’s tax funds with a flat economy as the outcome,” she said.

Such, who attended the supervisors’ meeting, said after the board made its decision that the city isn’t making the public records requests, which she believed will continue to be filed if the county goes its own way without fixing the underlying issues.

“No one really brought up the issues at hand,” she said. “I don’t know how they read that article and feel like they don’t owe someone an apology.”

The reason county supervisors discussed the TCEDA at their meeting on Tuesday was to consider asking the city council for additional time to complete audits of the agency’s finances and management practices.

After the Grand Jury report was released, the TCEDA Governing Board hired the independent auditing firm MGO to conduct the audits for $41,000 at the request of the city council and Board of Supervisors.

Bautista said she believes the audits will be completed because there is a contract in place, the TCEDA board has not directed her to attempt to cancel them.

February 19, 2019

The Union Democrat

By Alex MacLean