[Santa Clara County] Political power struggle is the ‘elephant in the room’ at VTA board meeting

Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.

The VTA’s Board of Directors had a study session Friday to consider more than two dozen recommendations from an outside consultant to improve how the authority is governed, and newly-elected board chair Cindy Chavez closed the meeting by addressing the “elephant in the room.”

The recommendations — which include setting expectations for board member attendance, eliminating the use of alternate members and adopting a longer board term — were presented by consultant RSM to the VTA’s Ad Hoc Board Enhancement Committee in December. The committee debated those suggestions at a meeting Jan. 17 after a lengthy public comment session. Having heard recordings of those meetings — and based on her personal conversations with fellow board members — Chavez said she senses a rivalry among the cities who are represented on the Authority’s Board of Directors.

Currently, the 18 directors — 12 voting members and 6 alternates — are elected officials appointed by their jurisdictions, with 15 city councilmembers and three members of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. San Jose has six representatives on the board, including Mayor Sam Liccardo and four other voting members.

“There is a belief that the city of San Jose has way too much power on this board and the smaller cities therefore are left out, or not included in the decision making and that is why every two years or so there is a strong discussion from some corner of the community about how we change the structure of the board,” Chavez said Friday.

The board chair encouraged the other directors to engage with that issue head-on at VTA board meetings, and not to shy away from the subject in their other interactions.

“I think there are some real discussions to be had about how we balance power and I want us to, in a very intellectually honest way, have a conversation about how the changes we are making create more opportunity for that,” Chavez said.

John McAlister, chair of the ad hoc board enhancement committee, told San José Spotlight he would prefer VTA board members be “full-time” or “dedicated” so they don’t have to “wear so many hats,” whether they continue to be appointed by local officials or elected by voters. But the latter would require a change in the state law that gives the board its authority, which requires that the VTA board be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, the San Jose City Council and the “city councils of all other cities, as provided by agreement among those cities.”

“In poker, you play the cards you’re dealt,” said McAlister, a member of the Mountain View City Council. “And this is the hand we have. So since we don’t have control over how members are appointed, we figured let’s look at the selection process so we can ensure that the people who are on the board are engaged and informed. And we should create a system that will provide them with the information they need to make informed decisions.”

To that end, McAlister said the committee endorsed the consultant’s recommendations that the VTA board should “revise member agency appointment guidelines and adopt a nominating process,” and “set member attendance expectations.”

The decision to seek input from an outside consultant to help the authority resolve its governance problems was preceded by a grand jury report last summer, which admonished the VTA’s board members, saying “most if not all” view the job as “secondary” to their commitments as elected officials.

The report also called out some board members who treat their appointment as a “resumé builder” and a “one-day-a-month job.” The 2019 Santa Clara County Superior Court Civil Grand Jury report was the third time in less than 20 years a grand jury has slammed the VTA board structure as being ineffective, including 2009 and 2004.

Meanwhile, VTA spokeswoman Brandi Childress told San José Spotlight in December that the board will continue to discuss RSM’s recommendations at a series of committee meetings this year, and eventually the full board “may reject, approve or revise,” any of them.

Transit activist Monica Mallon, who encouraged the board to take the consultant’s recommendations seriously, told San José Spotlight she thought the directors would be reluctant to make real changes to the board’s governance.

“A lot of people aren’t going to want to change anything at all,” Mallon predicted, especially nothing that “would affect the politics of the board.”

January 25, 2020

San José Spotlight

By Adam F. Hutton

[Contra Costa County] Misconduct charges against Contra Costa assessor would be dropped if he wins supervisor election

Gus Kramer, in the meantime, is running for a county supervisor seat

Blog note: this article references a grand jury accusation filed against the assessor in 2019.

If he’s elected to a seat on the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in March, embattled County Assessor Gus Kramer could celebrate two victories.

Winning the seat would result in charges against him of “willful or corrupt” misconduct and creating a hostile work environment being dropped, allowing Kramer to switch from one elected office to the other without missing a single government paycheck .

Superior Court Judge John Cope made such an outcome possible last Friday when he granted a request by Kramer’s attorney to postpone a trial on those charges to June 15, a full year after the County Civil Grand Jury filed the accusations.

Because the purpose of that trial is to remove Kramer from the assessor’s job if he’s found guilty, the reason to hold it would be moot if he voluntarily vacates the office to sit on the board. Kramer is running for the District 5 supervisor seat against longtime incumbent Federal Glover and fellow challenger Sean Trambley, a Martinez planning commissioner.

If a candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote, he’ll win the seat outright; otherwise, the top two vote-getters will face each other in November’s general election.

If a candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote, he’ll win the seat outright; otherwise, the top two vote-getters will face each other in November’s general election.

Because the charges against Kramer aren’t being prosecuted as crimes, “there are no other repercussions” for a guilty verdict other than removal from the assessor’s office, Acting Assistant District Attorney Chris Walpole acknowledged, noting the assessor isn’t facing any jail time.

Walpole is prosecuting Kramer over the grand jury’s accusation that he made “sexual” comments multiple times to female employees in his department from December 2013 through 2018 and uttered an ethnic slur to a worker.

The unusual “quasi-criminal, quasi-civil” nature of the case — as Walpole called it in Friday’s court hearing — has complicated matters. While the case is being prosecuted by the District Attorney’s Office in much the same way as a criminal trial, the usual procedures are different because they don’t involve jail time or any felony or misdemeanor convictions.

Kramer’s attorney, Michael Rains, said Friday he intends to file a motion to dismiss the case and meanwhile needs more time to depose witnesses.

Walpole objected to the postponement, saying depositions “don’t make much sense” in this case. Depositions are commonly taken before civil trials but seldom for criminal cases unless authorized by a judge.

Kramer’s case has stretched across multiple hearings since the accusations were first filed last June. Both the District Attorney’s Office and Rains initially filed motions to remove Contra Costa County prosecutors from the case and hand it over to the state Attorney General’s office, but Superior Court Judge Theresa Canepa denied them.

Canepa subsequently bowed out of the case, citing time constraints, and Charles “Ben” Burch temporarily took over, overseeing a series of motions and scheduling the trial to begin on Jan. 27.

But he noted late last year the trial would go to a different judge since he was taking a new assignment. When both sides met for a status conference on Jan. 10 in front of Judge Cope, Walpole and Rains said they were still awaiting some information subpoenaed from the Contra Costa County Counsel’s Office.

After listening to Rains’ push for more time to conduct the depositions, Cope said he could not start the trial himself until after mid-April due to other obligations.

Contra Costa District 1 Supervisor John Gioia, declined to weigh in on Kramer’s run for a board seat and how he may escape the misconduct charges if triumphant but indicated the legal process has gone on too long.

“I think the public interest is served by having a trial occur as soon as possible, given how long this has dragged out,” Gioia said.

County supervisors asked the civil grand jury to investigate Kramer in 2018 after an investigator hired by the county determined he “more likely than not” made comments in the workplace of a sexual nature, which the affected employees found unwelcome and inappropriate. Kramer insists he was “exonerated” of sexual harassment by that report. He has long insisted he’s been targeted by disgruntled employees and the current Board of Supervisors.

Rains gave an impassioned speech in court on Friday, noting he does not want Kramer’s due process rights violated for the sake of politics.

The case, Rains said, “was born and has its genesis in tawdry Contra Costa politics.”

January 24, 2020

The Mercury News

By Annie Sciacca

[Kern County] Grand jury issues positive report for Bear Valley Springs CSD

The Bear Valley Springs Community Services District received a mostly positive review in a Kern County Grand Jury report issued last week.

“It brought up a few things we need to look into and we will do that. Overall, I thought it was a fair report,” said William Malinen, general manager for BVSCD.

Jury members toured the facilities in Bear Valley Springs on several unannounced visits, with some visits in October.

The recommendations of the jury included that the district investigate a procedure to allow the general public access to public meetings and facilities, whether or not they live in Bear Valley Springs; develop an alternative exit route for emergency evacuations; work more closely with the Kern County Fire Department to ensure hazard reduction ordinances are adhered to; and other actions.

Residents and visitors entering Bear Valley Springs are stopped at a 24/7 main security gate, which is the only entrance or exit. Only residents may use windshield stickers or purchase a RFID tag to allow them to access a fast lane entrance that has a RFID reader.

The jury report cited that personnel at the main entrance gate were unaware of procedures to allow visitors to attend district board meetings or visit public facilities, thus “potentially violating government code section 54953(a).”

Malinen said, “That’s one we have to look at a little closer. I understand the meetings are open to the public, but we are a gated community. And we will continue to enhance and improve that security.”

The grand jury encouraged the district to consider the development of an alternative exit if there is a natural disaster or emergency, as only one entrance and exit is available for some 5,000 residents. 

They should also notify residents within minutes of an emergency.

CodeRED is an emergency system the district uses, and 3,000 residents are signed up for it. The district pays $15,000 for a three-year contract for the service.

The BVS Whiting Center is used for a place residents can visit if they need assistance. Personnel from the Bear Valley Springs Association and the CERT team are available at the center.

The grand jury report said the center needs a generator, and appropriate medical supplies.

Malinen said that generator has been purchased to help provide power in an emergency.

“We did provide a place for people to charge their devices and not many people took advantage of it,” Malinen said. He added, “Bear Valley Springs residents are pretty well prepared for power outages because they are used to winter storms.”

The threat of fire is a major concern.

As of June 1, 2019 the Kern County Fire Department issued approximately 25 fire warnings to property owners within the district for noncompliance. On Oct. 22, the grand jury noted only two properties were still in noncompliance.

January 20, 2020

Tehachapi News

By Cara Jackson

[Santa Barbara County] Crews establish 4-way stop at Union Valley Parkway, California Boulevard

Blog note: this article references a 2014 grand jury report.

Crews installed signs and striped pavement Monday to establish a four-way stop at the intersection of Union Valley Parkway and California Boulevard, which has been the frequent site of car crashes.  

Following a fatal collision that left an elderly woman dead in April, Santa Maria officials moved to turn the intersection into a four-way stop. 

In April, 83-year-old Judith Zimmer was driving an Acura sedan through the intersection of Union Valley Parkway and California Boulevard when a pickup truck collided with her vehicle.

Zimmer was pronounced dead at the scene by emergency responders. Two men also were injured in the collision.

Following the crash, city officials examined the intersection at the far south end of Santa Maria and determined it warranted a four-way stop, said Public Works Director Kevin McCune.

While reviewing traffic volume and past collisions at the intersection, city staff found five broadside collisions occurred at the intersection between Feb. 4, 2017, and Jan. 18, 2018.

Broadside collisions can be corrected with the installation of a four-way stop, according to a staff report prepared by the Public Works Department. 

On Dec. 17, the City Council voted unanimously to approve the new four-way stop.

The intersection, which was originally planned as a four-way stop, has been the subject of scrutiny over safety concerns since its construction in 2013, according to the staff report.

In 2014, a Santa Barbara County civil grand jury issued a report calling for the city to install a four-way stop, finding that the intersection created hazards, especially for motorists traveling north on California.

At the time, the city declined to install stop signs on Union Valley Parkway, saying a four-way stop was not warranted at the intersection.

January 20, 2020

Santa Maria Times

By Len Wood

[San Mateo County] Foster City mayor calls for Parks and Recreation audit Sponsorships and payment is in question; accountability sought

Blog note: this article references a complaint filed with the grand jury.

Foster City officials are investigating financial irregularities in Parks and Recreation accounts and may bring on an independent auditor to assist. 

Over the past several months, city staff have received a series of inquiries regarding the process for soliciting sponsors for city events and collecting sponsorship fees, Mayor Catherine Mahanpour wrote in an open letter to the community dated Jan. 13, adding that staff have since spent considerable time reviewing Parks and Recreation documents. 

“Through that review, it has become apparent that the billing and accounting practices in Parks and Recreation are deficient,” she wrote. “In my opinion, the council should look into bringing in an independent third-party consultant to audit the processes, procedures and practices of the Parks and Recreation Department since their records have evidently not been kept in a best practices manner.” 

In the letter, Mahanpour said she’s “aware of the non-payment of sponsorships by a councilmember,” but also said it remains unclear how much money is owed due to “a lack of documentation confirming sponsorships and follow-up billing.”

“We need to arrive at an understanding as to the outstanding amount owed and how that deficiency occurred to make sure that this does not happen again and to hold staff responsible for this oversight,” she wrote.

While Mahanpour did not name the councilmember who owes the city money, her letter was published a week after a citizens group called FC Watchdog filed a complaint with the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury accusing Councilman Herb Perez and his business, Gold Medal Martial Arts, of owing the city $17,000 for event sponsorships dating back to 2014. FC Watchdog is also leading the effort to recall Perez.  

“Foster City has allowed Council Member Perez to sponsor city events and reap the advertising benefits, while accruing an unpaid balance spanning six years,” according to a press release. The group is basing their claims off freedom of information act requests. “[We’re] concerned that Foster City tax payers are subsidizing the advertising of the private business of an elected official.”

The group also accuses City Manager Jeff Moneda of “possible collusion” in the release, though according to Mahanpour’s letter, whatever financial practices need to be corrected “started with the previous city manager’s tenure.” 

Moneda didn’t return calls or emails for comment, though he has already made internal changes as to how event sponsorships are handled and agrees that an independent audit is necessary, according to Mahanpour’s letter.

Perez did not want to respond to FC Watchdog’s allegations and said he doesn’t know who Mahanpour is referring to in her letter, which he described as inappropriate. 

“I have no idea who she’s referring to and the letter is on city letter heading, which puts the city in a legal quandary,” he said. “It would be unfortunate that any elected official would cast dispersions on any sponsor to damage their brand to further their political agenda or diminish the value of that substantial contribution.” 

Perez said he’s contributed $80,000 to numerous causes and events in the city since taking office and noted city officials admit there’re no documents suggesting he has failed to pay a single bill. 

“We’ve had no notification of any money due,” he said. “If there’s any outstanding balance they can let us know and we’ll pay it.”

Perez also rejects FC Watchdog’s claim that he has unpaid bills going back to 2014.

“The city does an audit at the end of every year with an independent audit firm that wins awards. I have to believe the audit,” he said. “From 2014 to 2019 we’ve received no notice of unpaid bills, no deficiencies. I don’t know what else to say.”

January 18, 2020

Daily Journal

By Zachary Clart

[Calaveras County] Official response: Board of Supervisors addresses departmental needs

Editor’s note: This article is a continuation from last week’s edition, summarizing county officials’ responses to the 2018-19 Calaveras County Grand Jury Report.

The Sheriff’s Office has a retention problem.

The Grand Jury found the Calaveras County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) to be understaffed and underfunded, leading to a low rate of employee retention.

It was recommended that the Board of Supervisors increase the department’s budget to raise staffing levels at the jail and on patrol, as well as to provide more competitive salaries for correctional officers and technicians.

It was also recommended that the Calaveras County Jail rent out beds to other counties as an additional revenue source.

Calaveras County Sheriff Rick DiBasilio agreed with the majority of the jury’s findings and confirmed that efforts to fill vacant positions are already underway, and that two correctional technician positions have been filled since the jury’s report was published. He stated that the CCSO is collaborating with Human Resources and an external recruitment vendor to expand outreach and increase retention by advertising “the benefits of living and working in Calaveras County.”

However, regarding the jury’s initiative that CCSO develop a written employee retention program by Dec. 31, 2019, DiBasilio cited limitations due to a lack of funding.

“An employee retention program is contingent on lowering the extent of the disparity in pay for all jail employee positions compared to surrounding counties of like size and similar correctional officer positions with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,” he wrote. “CCSO continues to alert the Board of Supervisors to the pay inequities that need to be addressed during employee bargaining unit negotiations. The Sheriff’s Office will discuss the retention plan with the County Administrative Office and Human Resources as noted above.”

In response to the jury’s recommendation on renting empty jail beds, DiBasilio stated that the CCSO already has a profitable contract with Amador County, and that options are being explored with the California State Department of Hospitals to house mentally ill inmates who have pending criminal charges or are awaiting trial.

With the exception of one additional patrol deputy position that was approved in the 2019-20 budget, the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors rejected most of the jury’s recommendations to increase CCSO funding.

The board, represented by Chairman Jack Garamendi in its response, stated that Calaveras County Public Safety Employees Association members’ salaries were already increased in a recent round of negotiations and that additional increases for corrections officers and technicians “needs further analysis, as salaries and benefits are a mandatory subject of bargaining and will be considered in the next round of collective bargaining.”

Audit and finance updates

The Grand Jury identified some shortfalls in the county’s purchasing protocols.

“A countywide standardized Purchasing Policy and Procedure manual does not exist, resulting in each department handling all purchasing at the discretion of the department head, thus eliminating appropriate checks and balances,” the jury stated in its report.

The Board of Supervisors partially agreed with that finding and assured that a purchasing manual “will be completed by Dec. 31, 2019, and will be fully implemented for the next fiscal year.”

The jury also found that a lack of grant-writing policy has led to a potential loss of funds within county departments. It was recommended that County Administrative Officer (CAO) Albert Alt develop grant application and administration policies no later than Oct. 1, 2019, and that the Board of Supervisors and CAO should form a grant-writing committee consisting of cross-departmental representation no later than July 1, 2020.

The board rejected both initiatives, stating that they were not “warranted or reasonable.”

“The County Administrative Office will work in collaboration with county departments on a case-by-case basis specific to grant requirements,” the board stated.

Code Compliance won’t get its own budget

Calaveras County Code Compliance developed a policy and procedure manual in response to the Grand Jury’s recommendation. However, an initiative to authorize Code Compliance with its own budget will not be implemented by the Board of Supervisors.

“The current reporting structure of Code Compliance does not compromise the department’s funding or stability,” the board stated in response.

The jury’s recommendation that Code Compliance “avoid writing municipal codes and fee schedules which create financial and physical hardships” was in need of further analysis, according to the board.

“Any fees contemplated by Code Compliance at the time of the master fee schedule revision, will be established by the Board of Supervisors in a noticed public hearing, as required by Government Code §66016. The amount of any such fee will be determined pursuant to the analysis required by Article XIII C of the California Constitution and Government Code §53750 et seq.,” the board stated. “State law prohibits the imposition of any fee that exceeds the reasonable costs of providing services, performing inspections, issuing permits, administrative enforcement or appeals of enforcement action or staff decisions.”

January 17, 2020

Calaveras Enterprise

By Dakota Morlan

[Solano County] OPEB background delivered at first Advisory Committee meeting

The Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Advisory Committee held its inaugural meeting Thursday to go over Vacaville’s approach to OPEB and begin the process of making recommendations to the City Council.

On June 25, the Solano County Grand Jury issued a report which opined that the city’s OPEB package for retirees was “not sustainable” and could lead to a loss of employees and services to citizens if not addressed. Among the report’s recommendations was the formation of an OPEB oversight committee to study the OPEB package and deliver suggestions to the council.

Staff did not initially support this recommendation, but the council formally suggested that an “advisory committee” would be more appropriate.

At Thursday’s meeting, Jay Yerkes, the city’s treasurer, served as chair and Robert Denton, Sherri McBride, Jim Leland and Laura Dougherty served as committee members. The group will meet over a 120-day period to produce a report to be submitted to the City Council.

“We are doing a limited, few-month scope of work to see if there is any stone that hasn’t been overturned already and if we can magically come up with something that hasn’t been talked about in the last 10 years that the city’s already been working on this,” Yerkes said.

Other Vacaville city staff were on hand to answer questions and present reports, including City Manager Jeremy Craig, Human Resources Division Manager Jessica Bowes, Administrative Services Director Dawn Leonardini and Finance Manager Ken Matsumiya. Bowes and Matsumiya delivered a Power Point presentation on the city’s OPEB background and how the package works.

According to the presentation, the city contracts with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) for pension and health benefits. The contract began in 1975, and Bowes said that the pension was dictated by the Public Employees’ Retirement Law, while health insurance was dictated by the Public Employees’ Medical & Hospital Care Act.

The city currently has three tiers for retiree medical. The first tier consists of an 85-15 contribution and a vesting schedule. The second tier consists of just a vesting schedule, which is based on an employees’ total years of service with at least their last five years being in Vacaville. The third tier consists of a substantial reduction in retiree benefits while keeping an employee’s benefit the same as other active employees.

Bowes said the first two tiers are closed plans that do not allow new entries. The third tier, however, is an open plan and has about 20 employees enrolled.

Matsumiya said valuation is performed by the city every two years, and the data is sent to an actuary. The actuary will be presenting the results of the most recent valuation at the next meeting.

In the 2019 fiscal year, $5.2 million was contributed to the OPEB trust fund, and $45 million was in the trust as of Dec. 31. The city also paid $4.8 million for health premiums.

“Retiree premiums annually end up being around $5 million,” Matsumiya said. “We’ve set aside pretty much $8 (million) to $9 million to fund retiree payments.”

In a public comment, resident Wendy Breckon said she had studied the OPEB issue since the Grand Jury report was issued. She was thankful the city established the committee because she felt Vacaville’s fiscal status was something that needed to be addressed.

Breckon cited a Transparent California report, which ranked Vacaville No. 112 out of 465 cities for health care spending, as well as a report by Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, which ranked the city in the bottom 10 percent for “financial soundness.”

“To fix any problem, you have to realize there’s a problem,” she said.

Breckon also felt that 120 days was a short amount of time to solve a complex issue. Yerkes said the council intended to have it done in a limited time period to see if the committee could come up with good solutions in a finite time period.

Leland noted that the next meeting fell on a Monday — Jan. 27 — and asked if it was possible for meetings to be held the same day of the week. Yerkes said it was possible to regularly hold meetings on Thursdays at 2 p.m., but Leonardini said the Monday meeting was due to the actuary being in town and scheduled to present at the City Council the day after.

“You’re just getting an opportunity to see it first,” she said.

Meetings are held in Conference Rooms A/B at Vacaville City Hall, 650 Merchant St. They are open to the public.

January 16, 2020

The Vacaville Reporter

By Nick Sestanovich

[Orange County] OC Animal Care searching for new leader after director resigns amid controversy

Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.

Orange County Animal Care will soon begin searching for a new leader after its director resigned on Christmas Eve following months of controversy.

Mike Kaviani, who served as director since August 2018, said he left his position because he wasn’t able to implement important programs quickly enough due to the lethargy of county government.

“It’s too slow,” Kaviani said of the county. “I have loads of admiration for who I considered my bosses when I was there. I don’t believe we differ in the vision of what OCAC should be. We differed in the urgency that I think needed to be demonstrated in making that a reality.”

Kaviani‘s resignation came a month after a CBS Los Angeles investigation by David Goldstein revealed that OC Animal Care withheld the dog bite histories of dozens of adopted dogs.

Some owners were attacked by the pets. The CBS report also cited records that showed the shelter “drugged” some dogs with the anti-depressant Trazodone.

Kaviani’s comments to CBS were controversial.

“When you’re dating, on the first date do you say all the things that you’re really trying to work on as a human being?” Kaviani told CBS. “No, you’re not airing that on the first date. Are you lying about that? Absolutely not.”

In September, a cease and desist letter sent to the shelter also caused controversy when the animal activists behind it alleged that administrators were “abandoning” un-adopted kittens and cats by releasing them back into the streets.

Kaviani said during a recent interview that both issues “absolutely did not” play a role in his resignation. He left for the role of chief program officer with national nonprofit Dogs Playing for Life.

“There will always be external concern; that is not uncommon in animal welfare,” Kaviani said. “That had absolutely nothing to do with my decision. Any time there [are] external concerns, the best thing an organization can do is just lead by example and demonstrate that they are running a transparent and highly successful organization.”

Kaviani came to OC Animal Care amid years of turmoil. The agency had been criticized by a scathing 2015 grand jury report and animal activists for its treatment of animals in its care.

As part of a strategic plan that it developed in order to rectify years of ineptitude, the agency in 2018 opened a new, $35-million shelter at the former Marine Corps Air Station in Tustin, replacing an outdated facility built in 1941.

“I think we are really in this exciting new chapter for OC Animal Care,” Kaviani told TimesOC at the time. “I know this sounds corny, but I see no reason why we can’t be the best shelter in the country.”

Sharon Logan, one of the local animal activists behind the cease and desist letter, said she believes Kaviani’s resignation was related to issues with his leadership and the CBS investigation.

“The facts had been coming out regarding Kaviani and his lack of leadership and inability to effectively lead OCAC shelter employees at OC Animal Care for months,” Logan said.

Andi Bernard, who is serving as the interim director, said OC Animal Care will begin its search for a new director in the coming weeks.

Bernard’s position as the human resources manager for Orange County Community Resources includes responsibility for a number of county programs, including OC Animal Care.

“For us, it’s business as usual,” Bernard said. “We did have a change in leadership but that doesn’t mean we have got a change in direction... Our priorities continue to be the public safety of our community and animal welfare.”

January 15, 2020

The Daily Pilot

By Ben Brazil

[Kern County] Grand jury report commends city, first responders, citizens for earthquake response

The cities and joint powers committee of the Kern County grand jury on Jan. 15 released a report praising the city of Ridgecrest, emergency responders and community members for their response to the Ridgecrest earthquakes July 4 and 5, 2019. Titled “City of Ridgecrest: a Whole Lot of Shaking Going On,” the report states under comments “The Committee was impressed and commends the City of Ridgecrest, Kern County OEC, Kern County Sheriff’s Office, Kern County Fire Department, Bakersfield Police Department, other police departments within Kern County, and every citizen who responded to render aid to the city of Ridgecrest.”

The sole recommendation in the report was that the city of Ridgecrest review the city’s emergency operations plan and update if needed to reflect lessons learns from the earthquakes. According to the report, the city’s emergency operations plan was last revised in June 2013.

The purpose of the report was to look at Kern County Emergency Operation Services (EOS) and the city of Ridgecrest’s emergency response program to determine if the earthquake response was sufficient and performed effectively.

To make their determinations, the committee researched media including newspapers, TV news reports and internet news sources about damage and recovery efforts, as well as visiting with city staff and touring the city. The committee also interviewed personnel at the Kern County Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in Bakersfield.

The committee’s findings include a chronology of events beginning with the magnitude 6.4 foreshock on July 4, 2019. Damage from the July 4 quake included merchandise falling off shelves, mobile homes falling off foundations, broken gas lines causing three fires, power lines falling down and unknown water and sewer line conditions.

The Ridgecrest Police Department initiated the Emergency Response System and notified the Kern County emergency operations center. Many agencies sent aid of various sorts including the Kern County Sheriff’s Office, the Kern County Fire Department, the Bakersfield Police Department and law enforcement officers from other cities. Utility companies were notified and power line and gas crews dispatched to initiate repairs. According to the committee’s report power was restored in about six hours and gas leaks were repaired as they were located. Local 911 calls were temporarily redirected to the county 911 call center and city computer-aided dispatch was temporarily disabled.

According to the report, building inspectors were brought in and the city’s public works department was notified. Water pumps were found to be operating normally and the Indian Wells Valley Water District repaired water leaks. The committee found that the sewage treatment plant at the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake was damaged and there was no sewer service for two days. Public works also inspected roadways and reported damage.

Significant damage after the 7.1 earthquake July 5 included the collapse of the roof at the local movie theater. Multiple county fire department trucks and cal-fire trucks that had been released to return home were called back to the area and all other county agencies remained on scene after the 7.1 quake.

After the Kern County emergency operations center was activated by the director the EOC went to a level 2 activation, which is “a moderate to severe emergency where local resources are not adequate and mutual aid may be required on a regional or statewide basis.” This includes a proclamation of a local emergency and a possible state of emergency proclamation.

Although not mentioned in the committee’s report, the Ridgecrest City Council was scheduled to potentially end of the state of local emergency declaration at its meeting on Jan.15, the same day the report came out.

Ridgecrest Mayor Peggy Breeden commented on the report on the day of its release:

“I am grateful they spoke to so many of our [residents] through all the info they read and saw on social media. Additionally, we have had hundreds and hundreds of first responders from all over the state, Kern county fire and sheriff who all went above and beyond. After the actual quake, there were agencies like the Red Cross, Cal [OES] and others assessing damages and seeking help and assistance. The USGS and their team helped us understand more fully what happened and what may happen in the future and prepare. There are so many others who all we can do is thank and remember to prepare as best we can for what’s next.”

January 15, 2020

Ridgecrest Daily Inpedendent

By Jessica Weston

[Santa Clara County] Santa Clara has no records of PR firm’s campaign work

Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.

As Santa Clarans prepare to go to the ballot box for a second time to vote on how to re-district the city for future elections, city officials can’t account for work done on taxpayers’ dime the last time residents voted on the matter.

When it comes to campaigns — whether for a candidate or ballot measure — it’s critical to keep track of what work is being paid for with taxpayer dollars because state laws prohibit spending public funds on anything that advocates for a “yes” or “no” vote, or otherwise shows a bias toward one outcome. Purely informational documents, however, are fair game for city employees and contractors paid with public dollars.

Santa Clara paid PR firm Singer Associates over several months in 2018 to draft Measure A press releases and other materials, including a set of “talking points” that were approved by Singer Associates the day before votes were cast on the measure, according to billing statements. But officials couldn’t produce documentation of the work the agency did, emails related to the work or recall what the talking points said.

The Fair Political Practices Commission, which oversees and enforces the rules around campaign financing, hasn’t looked into spending on the ballot measure in Santa Clara. But the agency takes spending for campaigns seriously, said Richard Miadich, chair of the FPPC.

“When public officials unlawfully use taxpayer dollars for political purposes it greatly diminishes the public’s trust in government,” he said in a statement. “That is why the FPPC considers the misuse of public funds among the most serious types of violations, and why our enforcement staff will continue prosecuting those types of cases to the fullest extent of our authority.”

Measure A, which failed with 52 percent of voters against it, would have split the city into two districts instead of the current at-large system, where each resident can vote for each City Council candidate. The measure was favored by Mayor Lisa Gillmor and allies Councilmember Teresa O’Neill and Hosam Haggag, who served on the committee that recommended the two-district option, and is now Santa Clara’s City Clerk.

The 2018 ballot initiative cost taxpayers about $190,000, and billing statements show Singer Associates billed the city on at least four occasions for work related to the measure.

Work outlined in those billing statements, including the “talking points,” should be available to the public, said David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit focused on free speech and government transparency.

“That’s exactly the kind of document that the public should be able to see and that should be preserved and produced under the Public Records Act law,” he said.

Singer Associates currently has two contracts valued at a combined $200,000 for a wide range of communications and PR work for the city that expire in June. The city is considering negotiating another contract for communications work, according to recent city documents.

The existing agreements were mired in controversy as this news organization found in September the city failed to follow its own code when bidding for the lucrative contracts.

In early May 2018, Singer Associates also billed the city for work on press releases before a document titled “Two Districts — One Santa Clara” was published. That release stated “Santa Clara’s community-initiated ‘Measure A’ gives voters more say, increases diversity, and geographic inclusion.”

City officials couldn’t provide documentation to show whether Singer Associates directly contributed to the release, but said communications work related to Measure A was “a collaborative effort between communications experts, ballot measure experts and city staff” who created information for the city’s website. They could not say who worked on what, or provide specific materials requested.

Drafts and other deleted documents

San José Spotlight also requested emails between Singer Associates employees and former Community Relations Manager Jennifer Yamaguma and City Manager Deanna Santana around the time the work was performed.

City officials said those emails have been deleted, though the request was made about 15 months after the work was performed and billed.

Santa Clara’s current record retention policy allows the city to withhold from the public any documents considered a “draft” — rather than a final version — and to destroy emails after 90 days. Some legal experts say state law suggests city emails should be kept for longer, though Snyder admits there are some gray areas in the rules.

“There’s a number of agencies that are routinely destroying emails on a short time frame, and 90 days is not all that uncommon, unfortunately,” he said. “We believe it is not appropriate to destroy emails after 90 days, but this is an issue that is probably going to have to be litigated before a court.”

As for the Measure A “talking points” approved by Singer Associates on June 4, officials could only guess why they disappeared.

“The ‘talking points’ document was likely a draft that was subsumed into the final press release,” said Simrat Dhadli, deputy city clerk, in an email.

But that timeline doesn’t add up because the election was the next day, and any press releases about Measure A or city redistricting didn’t come out until weeks later — on June 27.

That June 27 release announced the June 6 decision by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Thomas Kuhnle ordering the city be split into six districts for future elections.

So the public may never know what those talking points were — despite being paid for by a public contract — and whether they violated state law or how they were used a day before ballots were cast on the measure.

Singer Associates President Sam Singer declined to provide documents or information related to the firm’s work on Measure A materials to San José Spotlight.

“I wish I could be helpful here, but it is the responsibility of the city to respond to public record requests,” he said in an email. “My apologies for not being able to assist here.”

Indeed, Singer is not obligated to share such information with the public, though work and materials produced are typically considered public information when paid for with taxpayer money.

Another ballot measure

Now, Santa Clara is preparing to go back to the ballot for another measure that would split the city into three districts — a controversial proposal that has divided the council and residents.

What role Singer Associates — or other public relations firms — will play in the messaging remains to be seen, but it may continue to be difficult to track without changes to the city’s records retention policy.

San José Spotlight’s public records requests come after a Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury in June released a scathing report about the city’s compliance with the California Public Records Act.

The 18-page Civil Grand Jury report outlines a disorganized internal record keeping system at Santa Clara City Hall. The group ultimately gave up its initial investigation into the city’s procurement practices for contracts because the jurors claimed they could not get the documents they requested.

Santa Clara officials adamantly refuted the findings of the report and Santana, the city manager, claimed in a report and at a public council meeting last year that the grand jury had cleared the city of any wrongdoing in its initial investigation — though the grand jury report states that investigation was not completed.

January 15, 2020

San José Spotlight

By Janice Bitters