Archive | August, 2020

This just in – most masks not only don’t protect you, they make it easier for you to spread the virus. And oh yeah, Butte County jail is a state COVID hotspot.

11 Aug

Duke University just studied 14 different types of face masks – using ultraviolet light, they photographed particles emitted from each type of face mask with a person inside it, just talking. I think the phrase they used was something like, “Be safe, wear a mask.” Even though they were using their “inside voices”, you could see not only tiny dust-like particles, but droplets of spit, little globules spinning and whirling into the air. It was enough to make me a confirmed hermit, for life. 

Like I expected, they found N95’s and REAL surgical masks (those with three layers) are the only ones that block a significant portion of human spray. I’m not sure if the surgical-looking masks they’ve been handing out at stores (given by the city of Chico) are that good, the one I brought home recently only seems to have two layers.  Those cloth masks that people have been making at home, as well as bandanas and “neck gaitors” (turtleneck face protectors used mainly for snow sports) ACTUALLY MAKE IT WORSE! They slice the spit droplets into many more, tinier droplets that last longer and fly farther.

https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/wellness/story/scientists-tested-14-types-masks-worked-72285844

https://news.yahoo.com/wearing-bandana-gaiter-study-suggests-165959724.html

Here’s an article that gives more information about N95’s and surgical masks.

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/personal-protective-equipment-infection-control/n95-respirators-surgical-masks-and-face-masks

The study shows that N95’s are really the only masks that protect both the wearer and others with whom he/she comes into contact. But have you tried to purchase a box of N95’s lately? I haven’t been able to find them in a box – OUT OF STOCK – but they’ll sell you ONE for as much as $5 per mask.  

https://www.homedepot.com/b/Safety-Equipment-Respirator-Masks/N95/N-5yc1vZc25kZ1z195hh

And don’t reuse that – you may as well be stuffing used Kleenex in your pocket for another swipe. 

I remember hearing people say this in the very beginning, and I felt then it was true – masks give people a false sense of security, and they just step right into that 6 foot buffer zone. That just happened to me that last time I went to Winco to pick up groceries. And that’s important, because it is believed that with normal speaking and breathing, the virus can travel 3 – 5 feet. Some studies have shown that a cough or sneeze can travel up to 9 feet. And now we know most masks will not stop that.

So, any government that tells you to wear anything but an N95 or a real surgical mask is more concerned with your willingness to obey than your health. 

In other news, did you know there’s a “COVID hot spot” at the Butte County jail? KCRA reported 319 cases as of July 7. Here’s a more recent article from the Territorial Dispatch in Marysville/Yuba City.

http://territorialdispatch.com/articles/2020/0730-Extreme-Number-Inmates-Infected/index.php?ID=8589

“Within the past few weeks there has been a rapid increase in the number of lab confirmed COVID-19 cases within the Butte County Jail.” Most of these inmates are being cared for in the jail, but “When there is a need for an enhanced level of care, inmates are transported to local hospitals, but kept under observation by jail staff.”

Here’s the link for the Butte County jail website, where they post a daily update:

https://www.buttecounty.net/sheriffcoroner/Covid-19

As of today, according to the website:

  •  Estimate of 583 total inmate tests completed with
      • 359 negative
      • 110 recovered

So, 583 total tests, with 359 negative, leaves 224 positives, with 110 recovered, that’s 114 inmates who are still positive? But it goes on to say, “BCJ currently has 31 positive in-custody inmate COVID-19 cases.” I’m sorry to be so thick, but I don’t get their math. Where did the other 83 infected inmates go? It says right there only one is in the hospital.  Are they releasing infected inmates? And if so, where are these people going? 

Finally, here’s the Butte County COVID website, updated daily.

https://infogram.com/1pe66wmyjnmvkrhm66x9362kp3al60r57ex?live

As of today, 1280 confirmed cases countywide, with 959 recovered, 8 deaths, and 128 currently “in isolation”.  That means over 18% of Butte County cases were reported out of the jail, including 15 jail staffers. So I guess I’d call that “a hot spot”. 

Finally, this weeks news that California Public Health Director Sonia Angell has resigned over a scandal surrounding backlogged tests has confirmed my feeling that the state of California is not handling this crisis well at all.  First of all, there’s no accountability – she was just allowed to resign, and will probably be handed another lucrative position as soon as we forget her name. Second, Newsom announced the false news that cases were down and we could move into Phase 3 of reopening. As soon as local businesses were up and running, he announced he’d made a, gee, gosh, tiny mistake, slammed the door shut again, and struggling businesses all over the state went into a Swan Song. 

These people are unaffected by our little miseries, and they just don’t care. This is Newsom’s bid at the presidency, and he’s desperate to make a name for himself as a Great Leader. He’s desperate to make Trump look bad, and it’s just egg all over his own face.

Gavin, you blew it, I wouldn’t let you coach the Bad New Bears. That recall petition is still out there, they have until November to collect the required signatures.

https://recallgavin2020.com/

Here’s a two week old interview with a Butte County representative of the recall group – Robin McCrea.

 

 

Finally, I’ll leave you with these words of wisdom, attributed to Winona Judd by way of Kinky Friedman – “Wash your hands, and say your prayers… ” cause the last person you should probably trust right now is your average government official.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Butte County Public Safety Realignment and Postrelease Community Supervision 2011 Implementation Plan

8 Aug

Here’s the report I referenced in my last post:

Click to access Butte_County_2011-2012.pdf

 

I couldn’t find a more recent report, although I’m sure the county board of supervisors has been kept informed of this program by staff. I did find a 2015 analysis done by a group of faculty members at Chico State:

Click to access Navigating_the_storm_three_years_after_109.pdf

 

The executive summary:

“October 1st of 2014 marked the third-year implementation anniversary of California’s Criminal Justice Realignment (AB 109) legislation. California’s AB 109 realigned sentencing options for certain non-violent, non-sexual, and non-serious felony offenses, precluding incarceration in state prison. This less punishment, more rehabilitation sentencing structure shifted correctional supervision to county criminal justice systems (namely, county jails and probation departments) across the State. Along with this widespread jurisdictional decentralization, came many concerns regarding the impact of such a dramatic shift in correctional supervision.”

The authors studied “the change in workload for the District Attorney’s Office,  focusing on outcomes such as the number of case filings by specific offense categories, failure to appear charge accumulation, and total number of charges over time.”

The made a “comparison of recidivism outcomes of pre-AB 109 offenders to recidivism outcomes of post-AB 109 offenders.”

“These PCS offenders were tracked for three years to better understand their recidivism outcomes and impact on the local criminal justice system. Their cumulative impact on the jail and overall recidivism was assessed through exploring their total number of times entering the county jail, the proportion of those bookings that turned into formalized charges, and the proportion of those charges that ultimately became convictions.”

And here’s what I’ve suspected:

“Findings reported here substantiate reports of increased workload and changing needs on local criminal justice agencies.  A comparison of pre-AB 109 to post-AB 109 case processing statistics revealed a non-trivial increase in the number of failure to appear charges and the total charges per case for the Butte County District Attorney’s Office. Even after controlling for other factors (such as the defendant’s age), Realignment was correlated with a significant increase in workload. In concert with findings that a portion of the Post-Release Community Supervision (PCS) offenders placed a disproportionate burden on the Butte County Jail, these results suggest the increase was system-wide across the local criminal justice agencies.”

Here’s an understatement: ” Arguably, the complexities of this sentencing reform have surpassed the anticipated workload increases associated with allocated funding.”

And here’s the “complexity” – “Using a cohort of 72 PCS offenders, we discovered that 40 (56%) recidivated during the three year follow-up period. “

Here’s why I quit riding my  bike around town – “PCS offenders were most likely to be booked into the County Jail for (a) possessing a controlled substance or (b) resisting or obstructing a peace officer. Other top offenses included possession of drug paraphernalia, being under the influence of a controlled substance, driving under the influence (DUI), violation of protective order, and failure to appear for work release programs. “

This corresponds with the police report I looked at yesterday – offender after offender was booked as “under the influence” of unidentified substances, and there were enough DUI’s to make a person think twice about going out into Chico streets. And I’m talking, 2:00 in the afternoon, all times of day, there are inebriated people operating motor vehicles on our streets. 

Give that report a read for yourself, I just wanted to highlight the conclusions. Read what it says about them committing new crimes while they are supposed to be “under supervision.”   You may conclude, as I have, that AB109 is not working, and our county supervisors need to be told to stop taking in transfers. 

But it’s not just the county – the city has policies that exacerbate the situation. According to the report,

“Qualitative data suggest that officers have continued to maintain a service orientation in their approach to supervision. Caudill and colleagues (2012) found that, during the first year of the Alternative Custody Supervision Unit at the Butte County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO), 67% of all officer-participant interactions were service as opposed to enforcement-oriented.”

Meaning, instead of arresting people for criminal acts, Chico PD routinely “council and move them along…” Even under our new chief.  Is this appropriate given the level of recidivism? Do the cops really need to wait until an offender does something really bad before they arrest and incarcerate them? Well, that’s city policy, and I’m guessing it also has to do with the perceived overcrowding problem at Butte County Jail. 

So this stinking fish has many heads – five county supervisors and seven city council members who continue to make decisions based on paying salaries and benefits rather than what’s really good for our community. 

Butte County taking prisoners from state prisons but not spending the money to increase jail space – you know what that means

8 Aug

If you follow any of the “public safety” Facebook groups around town you see a lot of pictures of trash and needles and yeah, somebody posted an absolutely awesome pile of human shit on one site yesterday. But you don’t hear a lot of solutions, aside from give the cops more money, or vote for one or another council candidate.  And there’s very little, if any, discussion about how these people get here, where they came from, or who is getting the money for bringing them in. One local wag has told me I “assume too much,” so here’s a report that shows where I get all my assumptions.

Oh yeah, there’s money to be made off the transients, criminals, druggies, or whatever you want to call them. AB 109 – The Public Safety Realignment Act – includes funding for the transfer of inmates from one “over crowded” facility to another.  Here’s Butte County’s plan for housing inmates transferred to Butte County jail  from prisons and jails around the state, including the tally of how much money they get for doing it.

“Butte County Public Safety Realignment and Post release Community Supervision 2011 Implementation Plan”

“The Public Safety Realignment Act transfers responsibility to local counties for supervising specified offenders released from State prison who would have previously been placed on parole with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Additionally, AB109 specifies that certain offenders and parole violators can no longer be housed in State prison and will instead
be incarcerated in the local “County prison,” also known as the Butte County Jail (County Jail). The Act is effective on October 1, 2011, and Butte County will assume responsibility, at full implementation, for a daily average of approximately 449 offenders (268 inmates and 181 Post release Community Supervision (PCS) participants). This diverse population includes offenders whose most recent criminal conviction is deemed a non-violent, non-serious, non-sexual (non-nonnon) offense. No offender whose current or prior criminal history includes convictions deemed serious, violent, or are sex-related will be committed to the County prison.

The formula establishing statewide funding allotments for AB109 implementation in Fiscal Year 2011–2012 was developed by the State Department of Finance in consultation with California State Association of Counties (CSAC). The formula assumes $25,000 for each offender for up to six months of local incarceration. Each offender is also allotted $2,275 for rehabilitative services while Offenders on Post release Community Supervision are funded at $3,500 per person for community supervision and $2,275 for rehabilitative services (for a maximum of 18 months). The funding available through AB109 is based on a weighted formula containing three elements:

• 60% based on the estimated average daily population (ADP) of offenders meeting AB109
eligibility criteria;
• 30% based on U.S. Census Data pertaining to the total population of adults (18‐64) in the
County as a percentage of the statewide population; and
• 10% based on the California Community Corrections Performance Incentives Act of 2009
(SB678) distribution formula.

Based on this formula, Butte County is projected to receive $3,177,024 for nine months (October 1–June 30) for Fiscal Year 2011–2012 to develop an implementation plan and serve the approximately 256 offenders that will be released on PCS (Postrelease Community Supervision) and 160 sentenced felons who will serve their sentence in the County Jail during the fiscal year.

This funding includes:

FUNDING SOURCE                          AMOUNT
Public Safety Realignment funding $2,735,905
District Attorney/Public Defender Activities $98,069
AB109 Planning Grant (one-time funding) $150,000
AB109 Training and Implementation Activities (one-time funding) $193,050
TOTAL $3,177,024

Wow. 256 “offenders” released into Butte County, from all over the state, maybe beyond. How will we house these people? According to this plan, none of the $3,177,024 will go toward the expansion of the jail. The Grand Jury has repeatedly found that our jail is inadequate, why would we want to bring in more inmates. Especially with this news:

The development of the CCP implementation plan was constrained by the available funding. The allotted state funding is not sufficient to create a plan with the robustness that the CCP believes the public safety realignment deserves. However, the CCP developed a functional implementation plan that fits without the available funds.

State funding is not sufficient to house these transfers – you’ll see in a minute where they end up. Here they explain that all the money will end up:

“Based on the CCP implementation plan, departments developed budgets for the resources needed to carry out the plan. Because the new inmate and PCS populations are on a prospective basis, not all resources are needed on October 1, 2011. The first year of the implementation plan phases in the resources to match the increasing caseload and workload. Additionally, the first year of the implementation plan includes a substantial investment in one-time start-up costs, including equipment purchases, specialized training, and facility remodeling. Staff projected all costs into Year Two of the plan to ensure that the plan is sustainable with the anticipated funding when all costs are fully realized and annualized. The budget represents a sustainable implementation plan and is summarized below. A detailed budget is provided as Attachment A.

They include “facility remodeling,” but if you read on, you’ll see how much priority they put on that – most of the money goes to salaries and benefits:

Sheriff
8 Correctional Officers 304,601
4 Correctional Technicians 165,810
3 Sheriff’s Clerks 81,455
Ongoing Programmatic Costs 644,685
One-Time Costs 625,061
Sub-Total Sheriff 1,821,612

Probation
5 Probation Officers 277,988
1 Supervising Probation Officer 82,728
1 Probation Tech 48,753
1 Administrative Assistant, Sr. 44,664
Ongoing Programmatic Costs 32,733
One-Time Costs 141,362
Sub-Total Probation 628,228

DESS
1 Eligibility and Employment Specialist 40,505
1 Employment Case Manager 42,698
Sub-Total DESS 83,203

Behavioral Health
4 Behavioral Health Counselors 153,568

1 Mental Health Clinician 49,969
1 Supervisor Behavioral Health Counselor 46,419
1 Administrative Analyst 54,435
1 Medical Records Tech 28,593
Extra Help Nurse 9,010
Ongoing Programmatic Costs 100,658
One-Time Costs 65,138
Sub-Total Behavioral Health 507,790

 Total Positions 1,376,761
Total Ongoing Programmatic Costs 930,580
Total One-Time Costs 838,061
Grand Total 3,145,402

So, there it is – out of $3,145,402 in “realignment funding” only $838,061 goes to “one time costs,” and that includes “facilities remodeling”. So the sheriff complains the jail is too small, but keeps taking transfers? AB 109 says he can’t house more than he can accommodate, so he’s had to release them just about as fast as he’s  been taking them in. 

Here’s some gas for that fire – the state just announced they will increase releases by 70%.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-08-06/california-ups-early-inmate-release-estimate-amid-objections

I’m not sure whether these people will be transferred to jails or shelters, but you can just bet some of them will land in Butte County. Here’s a pre-COVID plan for doling out money to local shelters to take in the overflow.  From the Butte County Supervisors agenda dated May 20, 2014 – Contract Approval-Sober Living Environment for Alternative Custody Inmates

“The Sheriff’s Office released a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the services of a sober living environment for Alternative Custody Supervision (ACS) inmates and received 7 responses. Of the 7 responses, 3 were selected to provide services based on their facility, the services provided at the facility and the cost. The Sheriff’s Office has discovered that an obstacle to recovery for some ACS inmates is the lack of a stable housing environment free of drugs and alcohol. By offering select ACS inmates a sober living environment to enhance their recovery furthers the Sheriff’s mission of reducing recidivism. The following three providers, all located in the City of Oroville, were selected:

1) Life Recover Ministries: up to 10 beds at $550 per month per placement, maximum $198,000 for the three-year contract
term.

2) Northern California Treatment Center: Up to 10 beds at $550 per month per placement, maximum $198,000 for the three
year contract term.

3) Oroville Rescue Mission: Up to 7 beds at $525 per month per placement, maximum $132,300 for the three year term.
All three contracts are for a term of May 20, 2014 through May 19, 2017. State AB109 funding is utilized to provide this
service.

Use of AB 109 funds, up to an annual maximum of $176,100, funds already in Sheriff’s budget. Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) committee has approved use of AB109 funds for this purpose.

Yes, that is a 6 year old report. Why don’t you contact your supervisor and ask them for the most recent report? I don’t know if you need to do that – just drive around Chico, and take a look for yourself. 

Dear Local Wag, I got your note, and I’ll say, I’m disappointed but not surprised that you had nothing to say about the subject at hand. In future any comments you make will be posted on the blog, so you might want to proofread your rants before you send them to me. 

Tags: , ,

Yes, you can fire your city manager

2 Aug

The city of Marysville just fired their city manager on a 3-2 vote of city council. 

http://territorialdispatch.com/articles/2020/0731-Brown-Firing-Improper/index.php?ID=8619

I’m not saying this was a good decision on the part of the Marysville City Council, the point here is, it’s doable. And, they can do it “without cause“.  While I feel there is plenty of “cause” to fire our city manager, it’s not necessary.

Of course there’s the severance package – Brian Nakamura got a full year’s salary to walk away. For Orme that would be a little over $200,000. But I think he’s made one poor recommendation to council after another. He told us the Paradise evacuees were a burden and a year later we found out they gave us a windfall in sales tax receipts. Now he wants a mask mandate – while some say this is a state requirement, others have pointed out that the  governor has no such power, the mask mandate is a recommendation at best. But Orme has recommended using our local cops to cite folks not wearing masks. But no citations for illegal campers or folks handing out needles for them to shoot up in the park? 

Orme has turned our town upside-down. Time for him to go. And, as I’ve said in past, he can take his little toadies Constantin and Dowell with him. 

Tags: ,

Newer Entries →