We need to keep “presson” her to get those CPOA 460’s up there.
We need to keep “presson” her to get those CPOA 460’s up there.
I would like to respond to Ms. Sumner’s latest email regarding a process that is regulated by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). While I don’t expect Ms. Sumner to print my response nor include the documents that are attached (which have been OCR’d in order for the reader to copy and paste from the documents), I feel it is important to respond so that accurate information (with documentation) can be presented to the public instead of being provided with vitriol that is not meant to inform our citizenry but instead to disparage those individuals Ms. Sumner writes about. I also recognize by trying to provide this information that I only open myself up to more of Ms. Sumner’s distasteful personal attacks on my character and a barrage of name calling.
Regardless, I have listed below my responses to Ms. Sumner’s questions or statements.
City Clerk and Elections Official
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: juanita sumner
Date: Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:41 AM
Subject: CPOA 460 late, no reports available online
To: “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>, “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>, “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>
Cc: “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>, “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>
I’ve had several complaints from friends who’ve tried to view the campaign reports Downtown and say the CPOA is still late. The clerk has the authority to fine them $10 a day that they are late. Is she doing this?
· This process is in place and is being reviewed with FPPC. In addition, this office has been working with the CPOA in order to obtain compliance on the required filings. However, fines have not been levied at this time.
When I tried to look at the reports last spring, she didn’t have anything after 2012, for anybody. Now all she has are the initial filing papers, no 460’s. The reports are supposed to be filed a couple of times a year, but she doesn’t post them or make them available.
· Yes, all open committees are required to file semi-annual reports each year. When an individual is listed on a ballot, and when a committee is raising or spending money in connection with an election, three pre-election statements are also required. And yes, the required statements are made available the same day to anyone interested in viewing them.
· The City of Chico is in compliance with all the regulations pertaining to the accessibility of campaign disclosure statements by our citizens.
· There is no regulation requiring the documents to be uploaded to the City’s website unless an agency has implemented mandatory electronic filings (Gov. Code § 84601(d)).
Please note that the Council approved the funding for the NETFile program in the 2014/2015 Budget which will provide for online (electronic) submission of the FPPC filings required by the City of Chico. Once implemented, this program will allow for the immediate uploading of all campaign disclosure documents when received during the reporting period. I anticipate this program to be up and running by the first of the year for the Conflict of Interest Filings due in April 2015 and therefore in place for the 2016 election.
· Pursuant to the regulations regarding the duties of Filing Officers, it states that “all statements and reports filed (including the campaign log sheet) pursuant to the Political Reform Act are public documents and must be open for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours. Statements and reports must be made available as soon as practicable, but not later than the second business day following the day on which they are received.”
· Please note that the City of Chico has been providing access to all FPPC statements the same day the forms are received. A copy of each statement is filed in a binder kept at the front reception desk on the 3rd floor of the City Offices. In the past, Ms. Sumner has availed herself of those copies so she clearly knows that she has access to the files. In addition, when the City Clerk’s Office was fully staffed, staff resources were available to scan, redact, and upload all the campaign statements on the website within a few days after receiving the documents. Unfortunately, due to the severe financial setback that this organization has faced, staffing has been reduced throughout the organization which subsequently has had an impact on services once provided as a courtesy. Despite the limited resources, it should be noted that with the help from the Information Systems Department, most of the forms in question were uploaded to the City’s website as of Wednesday.
And she keeps telling us if we want to see them we have to come down there – why aren’t they on the website? “See the answer up above.” Does she expect all Chico voters to conga line in there to see the reports, or does she expect us to vote blind?
· Citizens come in all the time to review these reports or to request copies. As the Elections Official for the City of Chico, I want every citizen to have all the information available to make an informed decision when voting.
I would ask that if providing the “truth” is the intent behind Ms. Sumner’s requests, emails, etc. in order to not vote blindly, then she should immediately post on her blog the correct information about the City of Chico write in candidates… which there are none! She wrote that she was voting for Joe Montes, as a “write in” candidate but failed to mention that he wasn’t an “official” candidate, which would have necessitated the filing of all required documents with this office. To encourage people to participate in the election by including a write-in candidate is actually asking the voters to throw away one of their three votes and is disingenuous at best.
· In closing, the campaign information that Ms. Sumner refers to was always available to the public in compliance with the law. Would it have been easier to have been able to review the information online versus coming into the office to review the documents? Absolutely. However, to imply or state that the City of Chico’s reporting obligation has not been met, is simply not true. I hope that as the City recovers from the financial situation that it finds itself in… and that many of the services that were once provided as a convenience will be fully restored.
Thanks for your response to my concerns, Juanita Sumner
Election time again, and Dave Little is sitting on the letters section of the newspaper like a dog in a manger. Instead of expanding the letters section at this time, he narrows the passage, only lets in letters that he feels are directly related to the election. So, this letter I sent 10 days ago is still waiting to hit print. I think it’s okay if I run it here, since it will only be in the paper about 24 hours anyway. I’m afraid people have already forgotten the PG&E rate increase.
I’d like to see Brown get voted out in two weeks but I know that’s an ice cube’s chance in Hell. So, you might want to write to him and ask him why he accepted that kind of money from PG&E and then appointed their employees to the Public Utilities Commission. Ask him about the communications between his office and PG&E during the San Bruno hearings.
Those commissioners, by the way, make over $100,000 a year – the judge who literally sat on our hearing makes about $112,000 with another $30,000 in benefits. Remind Jerry Brown, the average California taxpayer makes just a little over $40,000/year.
The CPUC hearing regarding the PG&E rate “changes” was very enlightening. Judge Jeanne McKinney explained, PG&E will not see an increase in revenues, instead, they will “change the way revenues are collected.” She spelled it out very clearly – lower users will pay more, higher users will pay less. This action was made possible by the state legislature with passage of AB 327.
Twelve speakers at the 2:00 session pointed out, the CPUC is supposed to encourage conservation of energy, but this plan encourages higher usage. Worse, as Julian Zener pointed out, lower users are usually those who can’t afford to use more. The burden of higher rates falls disproportionately on the poor, while the wealthy who can afford to use more electricity will be rewarded with lower rates. At the same time they are decreasing the CARE discount by 25 percent.
The CPUC is currently embroiled in a scandal involving inappropriate negotiations with PG&E in the aftermath of the San Bruno explosion. E-mails released by PG&E last week show the governor’s office was also involved. PG&E gave Governor Jerry Brown $50,000 for his 2010 campaign and another $25,000 for his 2012 campaign to raise sales tax.
We need to change the way the CPUC operates. Currently, the governor fills this board with employees from the utility companies. Please join Chico Taxpayers Association, help change this statewide spoils commission to a network of boards elected and accountable locally.
Juanita Sumner, Chico Ca
Thanks Mark Stemen for sending this in. David Roberts asserts that “Our power utilities are structured to oppose our social and environmental goals.” Yes, that’s what I’ve been trying to say about the CPUC – they are the utilities.
I haven’t had time to finish, I don’t know if he proposes a solution besides “customer backlash” – we’ll have to read this and yak it up later, hope you will join us Mark.
Oh, and, by the way – good job on the creek! This is a compliment – you are my favorite POOPER SNOOPER! Go Babeeee! It made me angry when I read the lady at the Sewing Center tried to tell the city and they just ignored her – typical. That is the kind of attitude that kept my son from saying something when he rode by those leaking sprinklers on Forrest on his way to and from school every day.
Throw those shoes away though, okay?
Over the last few years, the police department under Kirk Trostle has proposed various ordinances that would result in fees being paid directly to the police department. He’s succeeded in getting a “social host” ordinance that includes a “service” fee for police being called to unruly parties, with provisions for charging a landlord if they can prove landlord knew about the party(ies). Trostle also tried to foist a local “alcohol tax” but was told by the city attorney that this was illegal under California law. But he has succeeded in putting police department fees in the new alcohol licensing process, staffer Mark Wolfe saying this might add $5-6,000 to the average license application.
Trostle said he’d used his “alcohol tax” to do compliance checks or “stings” on local liquor vendors and also to train liquor business employees to deal with underage and drunken customers. I responded that this is the ABC’s job, and Trostle made some ridiculous remarks, saying the ABC doesn’t do anything. Even Mark Sorensen agreed with me, they were asking to duplicate the ABC’s duties. But, I notice, the whole conversation continued and now Trostle has convinced the city to make him a direct part of the alcohol licensing process and let him skim a new fee off the top. This fee will go toward the bloated salaries and benefits in the police department, so Orme and Constantin have decided to throw it out like a piece of meat at advancing wolves. Those guys would throw the bride out of the sleigh in a New York minute.
And then last week I saw this piece in the ER – The ABC is doing stings in town, “along with the Chico Police Department.” A program funded by the ABC, in full, after Trostle told me the ABC doesn’t do anything. In fact, I had e-mailed the ABC after Trostle made the remark, got an immediate response, saying the exact opposite. I also thought the officer who responded seemed a little taken back by the remark. And now we see the truth – Chico PD just conducted a successful sting operation, busting three of five businesses checked, with money from the ABC. According to Mike O’Brien, “This will be the first of many as part of this grant”
According to the Enterprise Record, “It’s been at least a couple of years since a similar operation was conducted in Chico, O’Brien said. The Chico police Target Team use to do them when it was staffed.”
Chico PD is only three members short of being “fully staffed.” As you know, these people take salaries of $65,000 to $120,000 a year, now with mandatory overtime, but they don’t have time to do compliance checks on liquor stores? Give me a break. These guys are money hungry pigs who won’t do their fucking job unless they get extra pay for it. “When a majority of businesses are selling to minors, especially because Chico has a high student population, it’s worrying, [O'Brien] said.” Even though they are fully aware we have an alcohol problem in this town, they hold out for more money before they’ll do their sworn duty.
The contracts are up right now, please write letters to your council members and to the paper – we need to dump the provision that the city collects their union dues that get turned right back into city elections. Here’s Fillmer’s latest flier – how did she pay for this?
I don’t know who’s paying for all this because Debbie Presson refuses to put the campaign reports on the website. She says we need to come down to her office and look at them. Wow, you know what Debbie, you should be careful what you ask for.
CHICO >> Three businesses are facing potential consequences after clerks at each location reportedly sold alcohol to minors during a decoy operation by agents of the California Alcoholic Beverage Control along with the Chico Police Department.
Three clerks, who work at the Shell Gas Station, 952 Nord Ave., Chevron Gas Station, 1025 Nord Ave., and Anthony’s Liquor, 2101 The Esplanade, were cited for selling alcohol to minors, Chico police Lt. Mike O’Brien said.
Authorities made compliance checks at five Chico locations, but only three sold to the minor decoys, he said. It was a short operation, but to have that many indicates that there’s a problem.
People who sold alcohol to minors face a minimum fine of $250 and or 24 to 36 hours of community service for the first violation.
ABC will also look into taking further action against the three businesses where alcohol was sold, O’Brien said.
The penalties may include a fine, a suspension or the permanent revocation of their alcohol license.
Authorities also conducted a decoy shoulder tap operation, which requires a minor to stand outside a liquor or convenience store and ask people to buy them alcohol, according to police. The minor must indicate he or she is under 21 years old and cannot buy alcohol. If the adult buys alcohol for the minor, the buyer is arrested and cited.
O’Brien said only one person was cited, but he did no immediately know how many people had been approached.
It’s been at least a couple of years since a similar operation was conducted in Chico, O’Brien said. The Chico police Target Team use to do them when it was staffed.
Chico police currently has an ABC grant that allows for the operations and Tuesday’s event was just a test run to see what the compliance check would yield, O’Brien said.
When a majority of businesses are selling to minors, especially because Chico has a high student population, it’s worrying, he said.
“This will be the first of many as part of this grant,” O’Brien said.
Chico Taxpayer Casey Aplanalp has been pretty busy in his day job but pays attention to the issues that matter – thanks Casey for this letter sent to the Enterprise Record:
PG&E tells us to conserve energy. So as an incentive, they’re posing to increase the rates for lower tier energy users and lower rates for top energy users. It’s a slap in the face to those who conserve, and screws people who have gone solar, but makes perfect sense in opposite world.
They hold a Town Hall type of “discussion” and are presumptuous to allow people to speak for 2 minutes, as if we need their permission to speak out. This is their manner of gathering public consent, holding a boring meeting nobody wants to attend.
They hand-picked the PUC judge to preside, who is/was a lawyer for an energy company. Not exactly what we need to see from the PUC. Private companies don’t get to hire their own judges, and the Feds will see if this judge has indeed taken compensation from PG&E.
Something is wrong here.
I also wrote a letter to the ER but of course it’s caught in the election letter jam, we’ll see if it gets printed. I complained about the fact that Jerry Brown takes tens of thousands in campaign contributions from PG&E, then turns around and appoints their employees to the CPUC, turning a deaf ear to such practices as “judge shopping.” The Moonbeam has got to GO! This is one race where I will hold my nose and vote for Neel Kashkarian. He’s bad too, mark my words, I’ll be bitching about him too. But we have to snap the power vacuum grip they’ve got every once in a while, shake things up – that’s our only shot in the state races, shake things up and see what we get.
Unfortunately if we toss our dice in the city council election all we get are snake eyes.
Butte County Measure A will be a disaster for the taxpayers. Allowing anonymous complaints is just outrageous, it’s going to start neighbor wars, and the courts will be completely bloated with suits against law enforcement agencies.
No on Measure A. If you can’t support Measure B, at least vote NO on A.