Archive | February, 2015

Almost two weeks and no response to my request to be added to CARD aquatic center committee notification list

10 Feb

Contact CARD

To: my e-mail

Thanks for your submission.

Contact CARD
Name * juanita sumner
Email *  my e-mail
Comments or Questions *
I would like to be included on the notice list for the Aquatic Center Advisory Ad-hoc committee. Please contact me at the e-mail address listed above.

The public needs to press CARD about how they plan to fund the proposed aquatic center

8 Feb

I was so shocked by the response I got from CARD General Manager Jerry Haynes when I called to ask about the assessment process, I wrote a letter to the Enterprise Record. I’m glad they ran it, but I’m wondering if anything will come of it. I had filled out a website contact form, asking to be added to the Aquatic Center Advisory Ad-hoc Committee notice list, but haven’t had any response. I’m not surprised, actually – when I’ve made other requests via that website contact form, it’s taken weeks for a staffer to get back to me. I’m guessing nobody checks it very often.

I wish other people would call CARD, or attend a CARD board meetings sometime, and ask about this committee. Here’s the link:

Here’s my letter sent to the ER, run a couple of days ago:

On December 18, ER reporter Laura Urseny wrote, “A proposed aquatic center is part of CARD’s (Chico Area Recreation District’s) master plan and has been discussed for more than a year.”  

“A CARD subcommittee of board members and the public hoped to trigger large contributions from the community, but it looks like CARD will have to take the issue to the voters for a tax measure to pay for the facility.”  

“General Manager Jerry Haynes suggested and the board agreed to bring in consultants to talk to the board about ways to proceed financially with a center’s development.” 

I called the CARD center recently to find out more about this proposed tax measure. A man identifying himself as General Manager Jerry Haynes denied any mention of any assessment or tax in any news article. He further denied that the CARD board had any such plans, or had  even discussed it. 

When I asked him if I could be placed on the notice list for the Aquatic Center Advisory Ad-hoc committee mentioned in the January 21 board agenda, he first denied the existence of such a committee and said there were no such meetings planned. He finally admitted that new board member Bob Malowney had been named to this committee, but still denied there were any meetings planned.  

I am simply trying to learn more about the process by which CARD will “take the issue to the voters.” 

San Jose Mercury News: Fix CPUC NOW!

4 Feb

Read this story at

The links below work – click on “MORE: PG&E, OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES” and get more up-to-date stories regarding the San Bruno investigation and other utility news.

Mercury News editorial: PUC may require Legislature’s intervention

Mercury News Editorial

POSTED:   02/03/2015 03:27:00 PM PST




The California Public Utilities Commission has not come clean on the extent of its improper relationship with PG&E. Not even close.

 The 65,000 emails released last week by the utility it purports to regulate make this painfully clear — and make it all the more important to fully disclose everything that has gone on in the past to assess what to do moving forward.
Perhaps none of the three current PUC members who were involved in regulating PG&E after the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion should remain. To determine that, PUC members should voluntarily release all of their emails to or about PG&E to show the extent of their relationships.

So should former PUC President Michael Peevey, who is under investigation by the attorney general’s office — but we’ve given up expecting him to do the right thing. Same for Gov. Jerry Brown, who continues to defend Peevey despite his unethical conduct.

Fortunately, the Legislature can step in. Lawmakers can remove a commissioner with a two-thirds vote. They should exercise that power on any PUC members who do not release all emails to prove they’re up to the job.
And they should remove Commissioner Michael Florio now.
We called for his resignation in 2014 after emails disclosed he intervened on behalf of PG&E in the debate over allowable pressure for a gas pipeline in San Carlos. Florio warned PG&E that the governor’s office might try to broker a compromise. Then he wrote, “Amazing how I’ve become an apologist for PG&E in just three short years, isn’t it.”It sure was. So are the latest disclosures such as the November 2012 email from Florio to former PG&E Vice President Brian Cherry, who later was fired for inappropriate interactions with the PUC. Florio shows off just how chummy he is with the folks at PG&E by whining to Cherry about being assigned to supervise a PG&E rate hike proposal, writing: “I did NOT ask for this! Fortunately, for all concerned, we have good experienced administrative law judge in Tom Pulsifer. Can’t you protest or something???”

Florio admits to inappropriate conduct but maintains that “any objective review of my voting record at this commission will demonstrate that I have shown no partiality to PG&E or any other regulated utility.” Not really. What did he do to influence what showed up on agendas for a public vote?

In January, new PUC President Michael Picker said he wanted the agency to be more transparent, accessible and responsive to the public. Even though he hasn’t been president for long, releasing his own email interactions with all California utilities would demonstrate the type of leadership that’s been lacking for a decade.

Evidence of improper and unethical conduct continues to ooze out of the PUC, email by email, like seepage from a cracked pipeline. Let’s not wait for an explosion. Fix the agency now. If members can’t prove themselves worthy of public trust, clean house. If the PUC itself or the governor won’t do it, the Legislature needs to step in.

Houston, we got a problem…

1 Feb
This letter from former planning commissioner and past city council candidate Dave Kelley shows we haven’t solved our problems by electing new faces:
Chico Enterprise Record
Letter: Donors are winners on Chico commissions
Donors are winners on Chico commissions
At the Sept. 16, 2014, Chico City Council meeting, Mardi Worley, myself and others spoke up against the council’s desire to change the process of selecting citizens who apply to serve on city boards and commissions.Instead of selecting all applicants at a public hearing, in a 4-3 vote they permitted themselves to directly chose their own favorites for the Planning Commission and the Bidwell Park and Playground Commission.That night, I said changing this city policy could result in applicants believing they would have to be a friend and/or a donor to be considered for a board or commission position.Sure enough, recently two councilors appointed campaign donors. Mayor Mark Sorensen received $150 and Reanette Fillmer received $50 from their appointees. No public disclosure of the donations occurred before the appointees were seated.

These campaign dollars are petty amounts. But now, the perception of patronage is real. Now donors are winners. Now the door has been opened for future councilors to follow this dubious example.

The issue at stake is about principles, and principles are not petty.

— Dave Kelley, Chico