Grand Jury 2019-20 – “The City of Chico needs to find additional revenue sources by March 1, 2021”

16 Aug

This Tuesday Chico City Council will discuss their response to the 2020 Butte County Grand Jury report.

Click to access 2019-2020%20Grand%20Jury%20Report.pdf

The BCGJ report is chock fulla nuts.  There are also interesting reports on the Sheriff’s Dept, the jail, the county clerk’s office, and the county Public Works Department.  But here I’ll try to focus on their findings and recommendations for Chico.

In order to make their report, the jurors did the following research:

Interviewed:
o The City Manager
o The Chief of Police
o Butte County Board of Supervisors Districts 2, 3 and 5
• Attended:
o City Council meeting
• Reviewed:
o 2019 annual budget for City of Chico

The problem with the GJ is that they are completely dependent on  staff for their research. Their report about Chico sounds as if it came right out of the reports Mark Orme has been giving for the last couple of years. The don’t question anything, they just repeat what the city manager has told them.

The City of Chico estimates post Camp Fire financial impacts at $500 million, largely due to a
20% increase in population. In the future, some financial offsets will be made to this cost.
However, this unprecedented fire added additional strain to issues Chico was dealing with pre
fire. California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) payments limit Chico’s
revenue. The City of Chico continues to deal with insufficient revenue to repair roads, make
infrastructure improvements, and meet public safety needs, staffing levels, and pension
payments.

Again, we’re hearing about the financial impacts of the Camp Fire. $500 million? As you’ll see forward, this figure is a projection at least 10 years into the future. In the next paragraph they get to the real problem.

CalPERS
The financial situation facing Chico is problematic. The CalPERS unfunded liability, as of June
30, 2018 (latest available information from the state system) is $141 million.

This is a troubling – not quite a year ago, city finance man Scott Dowell gave me a figure of approximately $128 million. So, despite millions in annual payments toward the UAL – this report says it will be $11.4 million for 2020 – the UAL goes up every year. Here the GJ acknowledges same.

Unfunded accrued/actuarial liabilities are the calculated cost of promised benefits that are greater than the
current value of a fund’s asset. The yearly payments keep increasing along with the unfunded
amount. The 2019-20 budgeted payment is $11.4 million, almost 20% of projected tax revenue.
The State system gives the unfunded dollar amount to the city. This amount rises more than it
recedes each year even after the City makes multi-million-dollar payments. This situation is not
unique to Chico. Many other municipalities in California are facing the same issue, and some of
these municipalities have a higher unfunded amount and higher payments.

No mention of the payroll shares, now little the employees pay, they just write it off as a discrepancy in the value of the fund, as if that’s nobody’s  fault.

The fiscal year 2019-20 budget for Chico is $135 million, and the unfunded liability is more than
the budget. This problem cannot be solved locally. It will require either a change in state law or
judiciary changes through the court system if state law is not changed.

This is absolutely not true, the city has other alternatives, including switching to 457 Funds and getting out of CalPERS. Instead they began pilfering money out of every  department to pay the UAL. The Fund 903 is the only truly “restricted fund”.

To manage this difficult situation, the city of Chico has created a fund (903) to deal with CalPERS payments. As of fiscal
year 2019-20, the amount in the fund is $2.4 million which can only be used for CalPERS
payments.

The budget chart on page 106 shows the increasing payments made to CalPERS. And then this note, at the bottom of the budget – here’s why our roads and other infrastructure have suffered.

(1) Beginning in FY2017-28, each department will set aside a set percentage of payroll costs to fund the annual payment of the CalPERS unfunded liability. A target reserve of 10% of the annual unfunded liability expenditure will be retained in the fund.

With a UAL of $141 million, that would be a total of $14 million to be split among the departments. These are funds that would otherwise be spent hiring more employees and paying for street and infrastructure improvements/maintenance. 

And here they bring in the Camp Fire again. Remember, Orme claimed in the months following the fire that the city would lose money, but later admitted they brought in a windfall of over $3 million in sales tax, Utility Tax, and bed tax. But he continues to use the Camp Fire as an excuse for poor management.

The impact of the Camp Fire coupled with future and unfunded dollar amounts to CalPERS creates difficult fiscal decisions. The financial impact to the City from the Camp Fire is estimated by the City to be $500 million.

Yes this figure was given to them by staff. And, as you see here, these figures are projected over the next 12 years, and they were hardly necessitated by the Camp Fire. They were necessitated by at least 10 years of deferred maintenance. 

City staff estimate the $500 million Camp Fire financial impacts as follows:

 $196 million in personnel costs over the next twelve years to service the increased population

 $235 million for expansion of facilities
 $34.8 million for roadways
 $15 million for the sewer system

But the report also mentioned reimbursements of over $6 million, just in the first years after the Camp Fire.

The City received one reimbursement from FEMA in the amount of $7,302 to cover the cost of FEMA required high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters for the offices. The City received $549,862 in property tax back fill from the State of California. The Office of the Butte County Auditor-Controller determined the dollar amount of the tax back fill. The City also received $3 million in relief from a State approved appropriation. Chico is using the bulk of the $3 million to implement technology upgrades and pay for a new
radio communication system.  

The report claims, “However, there is no guarantee of any more compensation coming to the City.”

That is not true – new residents always mean new revenues, new housing and higher housing prices drive up property tax, vlf, UT, etc. New residents generate new sales tax. 

The next subject is “Roads”.  No mention of deferred maintenance or figures given by Constantin last year – 10’s of millions to repair streets, many of which have slipped into such a state they will need to be reconstructed.

For fiscal year 2019/20, $2.5 million is budgeted for Capital Expenditures which includes road maintenance/repair. The Gas Tax Fund (Fund 307) funds road work/repairs. Fiscal year 2019/20 Fund 307 revenue is $4.8 million. 

$2.5 million for capital expenditures, which INCLUDES road maintenance/repair. $4.8 million more from the gas tax. But, when these funds are transferred into the public works fund, they are subject to the allocation mentioned above (1)  Here they report they’ve started a “Public Infrastructure Fund, but there’s no mention of this fund being restricted in any way.

The City of Chico staff, following the best government accounting practices, has set up a Public Infrastructure Fund (Fund 943), which is used for infrastructure projects and includes some of the waste hauler franchise fee. This revenue comes into the General Fund and is then allocated. The Fund 943 balance is $68,000.

“some of the waste hauler fee” – yeah, we all remember they said the “trash tax” would go toward fixing the roads, but it’s been emptied into the General Fund ever since. They don’t give a figure, why not?  Who are they kidding – this fund ($68,000?)  is far short of the costs projected by Chris Constantin for our streets and roads in coming years, long before the Camp Fire. 

 If you look at the budget chart on page 109 you see not of the money goes into actual street repairs. It looks like they’ve put about $40,000 into the “Bridge Plan of Action” and over $200,000 into “Pavement Management Asssement” but not much into the actual repairs. They spent $100,000 on the bike path extension to 20th Street Park – people don’t realize, not all the “street” money goes to improvements that facilitate cars. 

Another misleading statement in this report is that city staffers have not had “any pay raises in the last ten years”. That is not true. For one thing, when the city asked management to pay toward their own pensions (at that time, they paid nothing, the city picked up their share), Mark Orme and other staffers were given raises to more than cover their increased shares. Orme was also given a 457 plan, a special 401K for public employees. His contract states that he will get a fixed $9,000/year, plus 4.5% of his salary, which amounts to an extra $20,000/year. In addition to over $50,000 paid by the city toward his CalPERS benefits.

The report goes on to discuss the Police Department. Again, with the 2020 census still on the horizon, they claim fa 20% increase in population due to the Camp Fire.

The department consists of 158 employees and is budgeted for 168. Of the 158 on staff, 98 are sworn officers with a budget for 108 officers. With approximately 20% more residents in Chico post Camp Fire, more sworn officers and support staff are needed. However, officer recruitment
is difficult, largely due to low wages. After recruiting a candidate, another year to year and a half is required to complete the hiring process. This includes the Police Academy and department training. Technology upgrades such as automatic license plate readers and onboard computers
will help relieve some of the pressure for more sworn officers. However, revenue is needed for either to occur.

Earlier they admitted that the city received reimbursements that covered, spending at least $3 million on “technology upgrades and [to] pay for a new radio communication system.” 

Public safety (cops and fire) get over half the budget, and create over half the UAL because they only pay 15% toward their pension costs. They also as much as double their agree upon salaries with mandatory overtime and contract gadgets like “CTO”.  If public safety employees would agree to take more reasonable salaries and pay more toward their own benefits, we could hire more cops and fire. Period.

The report lists “challenges” – AB109, prop 57 and jail releases, NVHRC, the homeless. They need to talk to the sheriff’s department – the county approves the transfers and releases.  This report indicates a lack of cooperation between BCSO and CPD, and that’s another problem. 

I was very disappointed with the lackluster conclusions they drew, and their “findings” and “recommendations.

Conclusion
Chico faces several financial obstacles including insufficient revenues for CalPERS payments, along with the need for improved infrastructure, road repair/maintenance, public safety and staff salaries. Due to Chico’s growth, the infrastructure and roads need improving. To meet the safety
concerns of the growing population, public safety improvements need to be made. Both financial and personnel issues also need to be addressed. 

  • insufficient revenues for CalPERS payments – why not ask the employees to pay more?
  • need for improved infrastructure, road repair/maintenance – they act like that’s a new thing brought on by the camp fire, even though staff has been telling us fore years we needed to put more money into the streets 
  • more money for public safety and staff salaries – if employees would pay more toward their benefits there would be money for more hires
  • They keep citing “growing population” as though that’s a complete surprise – the truth is, staff has looted our funds to pay down their pension deficit

The “Findings” page won’t cut-and-paste – so I’ve compressed it a little:

  1. CalPERS is putting ever increasing burden on the city’s General Fund, impeding the city’s ability to provide essential services
  2. the city is experiencing financial impacts and population growth from the Camp Fire
  3. the city roads need attention due to lack of maintenance
  4. city staff has performed well but has not received a pay increase for 10 years
  5. Chico PD is understaffed
  6. Chico Police department could face big changes with new chief
  7. the city has been fortunate “to receive 5 years of service” from outgoing Chief OBrien

I think this is one of the most pathetic, misled and misleading Grand Jury reports I’ve ever read. And here’s their even more ridiculous “recommendation” – hold onto your hats!

R1. The City of Chico needs to find additional revenue sources by March 1, 2021.

And there it is. That’s the result of months of “investigation” and “deliberation”?

The city will discuss their required response to this incredible stretch of logic at Tuesday night’s meeting. I’m going to make my own recommendations via Chico Engaged, I hope you will do same.

https://chico-ca.granicusideas.com/meetings

Keep it clean!

 

 

Orme, not council, will choose new police chief

14 Aug

City manager Mark Orme, who denied to me recently that he runs our town, should be announcing his pick  for new Police Chief today. Yes, Orme, a guy who was hired by people long since gone, not elected by the voters, will be choosing our new police chief. As of the Ch 7 news this morning, he was down to three candidates from the six announced earlier this week.

Orme claims he will rely on feedback from a “Community panel” – wouldn’t you think that means interested local folks, Chicoans who care? No, Orme chose his “vast array of this community”, all members of the government. Sheriff Kory Honea, District Attorney “Mark” (hey, Natalie, can you proofread your junk?) Ramsey, “police chiefs from neighboring cities such as Redding and Yuba City, non-sworn Chico Police department employees, and a representative from Chico State Univ Police Dept. were involved.”

In the press release, Orme didn’t name all of them, and here’s a question – how many of them live in Chico? And no introduction to the public? He’s not even naming the candidates. 

I’ll tell you why – back in 2015, Orme was vetting candidates for chief, here’s what I found out about one of the guys he was thinking about hiring:

Did illegal ticket quotas hasten Gesell’s exit?

Charges included an illegal speeding ticket quota, spending taxpayer money on vacations and other priveleges for his family, and lying to this employer about seeking other jobs. He was also under fire for the police shooting of an unarmed man.  When all this became public in Chico, that candidate ended up being abruptly dropped from the process, and was later asked to resign from his position in SLO. 

Here’s what Melissa Daugherty had to say about him:

https://www.newsreview.com/chico/chief-concerns/content?oid=17230361

She added a very important point – Chico is just a jump-off for police chiefs to spike their salary for retirement benefits.

“In all seriousness, it’s going to be interesting following this. One of my main concerns with Gesell is that he’s a career cop who is almost 50, which means he’s nearing that formula where he can retire at 90 percent of his highest salary for the rest of his life. Chico’s last two chiefs cut out at that magic number. What would stop this guy from doing the same?”

Right now I think the public is more interested in this hiring than ever. I don’t remember when the public has been so interested in a public process. But Orme apparently has not engaged any community groups, no Chico First, no Stand Up For Chico, just bureaucrats. 

Orme told little Natalie the Reporter that “having the council interview candidates is another way to engage with the public’s interests. If they were voted into office, not only did I get a community panel, but I have community representative giving me feedback.” 

Do you really feel represented by this council, which is split almost down the middle in coming up with a “policing policy” for this town? Do you feel represented by Mike Ramsey, who has declared every single officer involved shooting in Chico “justified”? Does Kory Honea represent you? 

“All of those perspectives…will help me in my deliberations in choosing the chief.” Orme said. 

“Hiring a police chief is the most important hiring decision the city manager will make,” Mayor Ann Schwab said, saying she was pleased that “a wide perspective of the community” was considered in the interview process. 

Let’s face it – Orme runs our town, council just sits there waving their hankies. This takes all the pressure off council at election time, and Orme isn’t elected, he does not have to answer to the citizens. They protect each other, and to hell with the public.

Tags:

ABC News: As coronavirus spreads through nation’s jails and prisons, lawmakers demand more transparency on toll, AND TRANSFERS

13 Aug

I hate to say “I told you so,” so stop making me! I just posted my suspicions about infected prisoners ending up in towns all over America, and here ABC news is telling us that’s exactly what’s happening. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/coronavirus-spreads-nations-jails-prisons-lawmakers-demand-transparency/story?id=72213761

Here’s a story from back East about infected prisoners being transferred.

https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2020/08/11/prison-coronavirus-outbreak-vt-new-england-inmates-covid-tallahatchie-county-correctional-facility/3288828001/

These links won’t last, and I don’t have time to cut-and-paste the details in, so read them fast. And then do your own research, I hate to be accused of spreading misinformation!

And then go out and about in Chico, and ask yourself, where did these people come from?

Tags:

AB109 just a revenue source for the county – how’s that working out in your neighborhood?

12 Aug

Well, after that post I made yesterday, including news that Butte County jail is a “COVID hot spot” and my suspicions that they are releasing infected inmates into the community, I found this piece in Cal Matters today:

https://calmatters.org/justice/2020/08/california-prisons-early-release-coronavirus/

“Desperate to control the outbreak at California’s overcrowded prisons, state officials opened the gates to thousands of prisoners like Scull, including many before their scheduled release date. “

The reporter speaks to an ex-inmate from San Quentin – a guy convicted of carjacking and robbery – who ended up in a motel room in LA. So how many of these people are headed for Chico? And since when is carjacking not a violent crime? 

And like I also suspected, the support and supervision system for these releases is thin to non-existent.

“I had friends out there protesting saying, ‘Let them all out.’ I said, ‘You don’t understand. There’s no system outside that can handle this,’” said Judith Tata, executive director of the California Reentry Program, which provides parole and pre-release services to inmates at San Quentin. “We have people who are transient when they’re arrested. They’re mentally ill, have substance abuse issues and we’re releasing them early to no social services.”

Tata said her program got letters from people in prison asking for help connecting with services on the outside, but by the time they could respond, the men were already out.”

This is how Butte County inmate John Conway ended up along a road outside of Downieville, now accused of shooting three people, one of whom died. 

Butte County needs to stop participating in AB109 transfers.  I wrote a letter to the editor about it – let’s see how long it takes Flash Read to print this one. 

A man who’d been released from Butte County jail is suspect in a Sierra County killing.  Arrested three times over 2019-20, charges including battery, criminal threats and auto theft. Butte County court dismissed charges in two cases. In January the court gave the man a “split sentence” – part jail time and part “community supervision,” despite at least two failures to appear for previous court dates.

Just six months later he appeared along a Sierra County road with a gun, accused of shooting several people, one dead.

Several grand juries have found our jail inadequate. Overcrowding leads to releases, including prisoners sent here through AB109. In 2011  256 “transfers” were sent to Butte County from state prisons, almost half of them under “community supervision”.  A 2014 report said 56% were rearrested, many for new offenses, including “a non-trivial increase in the number of failure to appear charges.”

AB109, The Public Safety Realignment Act, “transfers responsibility to local counties for supervising specified offenders released from State prison.” A 2011 report shows Butte County received over $3,000,000 to initiate the program. In 2015, the county received over $40,000,000 to expand the jail, but earlier this year, the sheriff revealed he has not taken any bids, blaming costs up due to the Camp Fire.

County budget reports show the AB109 money goes almost entirely for salaries and benefits – of $3,145,402, only $838,061 went toward “one time costs,” including “facilities remodeling”.

AB109 seems to be nothing more than a revenue source for the county to pay salaries and benefits.  How’s this working out in your neighborhood?

Juanita Sumner, Chico

Tags: , , ,

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: ,

Q & A for your district rep: What is CTO?

31 Jul

Thanks Jim, for sending me that piece from Cal Matters about the “pension spiking” case that went before the California Supreme Court.

https://calmatters.org/economy/california-pension-crisis/2020/07/court-spiking-pension-protections/?utm_source=CalMatters+Newsletters&utm_campaign=eec887cb04-WHATMATTERS_NEWSLETTER&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_faa7be558d-eec887cb04-150570236&mc_cid=eec887cb04&mc_eid=69d539c9be

I had heard something about the Alameda County Sheriff’s Association trying to overturn the 2013 Public Employee Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), especially the sections forbidding spiking.

Here’s an example of pension spiking – 

https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/Cities/City.aspx?entityid=79&year=2018

The highest paid employee in Chico is the fire captain who sits on his (excuse me, I blame the COVID) BIG FAT ASS 24-7 over at the airport fire station, waiting for a plane to crash. That’s all he’s trained for, he does nothing but gets more than twice the salary he agreed to in his contract. That’s him at the top of the chart. Here’s the details –

https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/PositionDetail.aspx?employeeid=22081497

This person agreed to a salary of about $99,000/year, so how does he end up with “total wages” of $224,880/year? He spikes his salary with overtime, that’s how. Why wouldn’t the city just hire another man? Because Staff, led by Snake Charmer Mark Orme, has convinced our idiots on council that it’s cheaper to pay one guy more than his salary in overtime than hire another equally qualified person at the same salary.

In the old days, this man’s pension would have been based on his “total wages,” including overtime. That was banned by PEPRA.  Do you realize how that pissed off “public safety workers” all over the state? So they immediately lawyered-up and started to pick away at PEPRA.  Until now, courts have upheld the “California Rule” – “Any retirement benefits promised to a worker at the outset of a job can only be reduced if they are replaced with something of equal value.”   See, it’s all based on “collective bargaining,” another set of bullshit rules that say elected officials can’t bargain with employees, that they have to allow an “arbitrator” to make the deal, and then we all just have to go along with it. We don’t get to show face at the table, we don’t get to raise our fists – we’re just supposed to open our checkbooks and pay. 

Guess who our “arbitrator” is? Yeah, the forever arbitrary Snake Charmer in Chief, Chico Shitty manager Mark Orme. 

This ruling is an important,  “But the Supreme Court stopped short of out-and-out nixing the California Rule. “

“In the 90-page opinion written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, the court found that “closing loopholes and preventing abuse of the pension system” was consistent with state law that otherwise makes it exceedingly difficult to renege on promised pension benefits for future work. “

So that means keep up the fight. Look at the other details in that page from publicpay.gov

Regular Pay       $98,795      SALARY
Overtime Pay    $103,972     OVERTIME
Lump-Sum Pay     $3,581      The dollar amount paid to the employee for one-time cash-outs (including, but not limited to, paid excess vacation and sick leave, and legal settlements)

Other Pay            $18,532      The dollar amount paid to the employee for any other pay not reported as regular pay, overtime pay, or lump-sum pay (such as car allowances, meeting stipends, incentive pay, bonus pay, etc.).

Defined Benefit Plan Contribution       $25,182    PENSION

Health/Dental/Vision Contribution      $12,447    HEALTH BENEFITS

While the court has banned and upheld that ban on including overtime in pension benefits, the California Rule still allows for “Lump sum pay” and “other pay” to be added to pension benefits. Here’s a recent post I wrote about that.

https://chicotaxpayers.com/2020/07/10/take-a-cup-of-ot-and-add-a-cup-and-a-half-of-cto-pour-in-some-sto-and-you-get-an-iou/

I hope more people read that July 10 post.  I know this is a complicated subject, but I’m a housewife who was trained as an elementary school teacher, and I GET IT. I’ve been called every synonym for “stupid” in the dictionary, but I GET IT.  

Chico City Council just signed another year of cop and fire contracts without even discussing the pension deficit. I’d bet my last $5 most of council didn’t even read the contracts. 

Want to find out? Ask your district representative or candidate, “What is CTO?” Let me know what you get. 

UPDATE: I’m so glad I asked – my district rep, Kasey Reynolds, gave me a good conversation. I’m critical, and sometimes I realize, kind of a bitch. But Reynolds always responds, and she’ll admit when she’s not aware of various details. 

The worst response you can get from your district rep or candidate is NONE. Don’t let them get away with that – be polite, be firm, and if you don’t get a response, email them again. 

 

Tags: ,

Mau Mau the Flakcatchers (with my apologies to Tom Wolfe)

28 Jul

I’ll never forget this movie I saw when I was in college – “King of Hearts”, with Alan Bates and Genevieve Bujold. It is set in France during WWII – a British soldier is sent ahead to a French town to disarm a bomb left behind by the retreating Germans.  

What he doesn’t know, is that the residents have run away, leaving the local insane asylum open, and the mental patients have assumed charge of the town.  He explains to them that he is looking for a bomb, but they don’t seem to care, arranging a fabulous ceremony to make him their king.  He’s so polite he goes along with it. Eventually, the Germans return and attack his regiment, destroying the town in the process.  The soldier ends up returning to the asylum with his new friends. 

Ah, wishful thinking, wouldn’t we all just like to throw up our hands and let “somebody else deal with it…” 

Well, it looks like we have done just that – our town has turned into an insane asylum, and the inmates are running it. 

 

Thanks again Pypr! Cause this picture just says it ALLLLLLL!

I have to say, I’ve fallen into the madness myself – I called out the city manager the other day, and we had a little row that reminded me of closing time at a dive bar. I complained to him about the closed meetings for non-essential items, and he came out swingin’!

I’ve been trying to be patient, because I know the clerk’s office has been working really hard to make the closed meetings transparent, but when I heard the Bidwell Park and Playground Commission, and then the Airport Commission, were having closed meetings that would not be available on Engaged!, I’m sorry,  I lost it. After going back and forth with the clerk for about a week, I had to thank her, and then I let Orme have it.

Thankyou for all your time dealing with this Debbie, 

but I’m going to keep squealing like a pig until they open the meetings again. I’m sorry to have to include you in the emails, but you’re the clerk of the board and I want it on the record.

I found the parks video, but how is anybody else supposed to find it? Does everybody have to email the clerk? I know Mr. Orme assumes “nobody reads it anyway” because that’s what he told a friend of mine when he inquired about public information not being posted on the website. I saw the email he got from Orme. I beg to differ, Mr. Orme, I receive requests for this type of information at my blog regularly, from people who have trouble navigating the website, and don’t know who else to contact. The website needs to be consistent, including the reports for various meetings. 

 

But as for meetings, there’s nothing like human participation, technology can’t accomplish that. Council and other boards keep scheduling meetings for less than essential subjects,  things that should be fully discussed in front of the public, like giving the park up to the bums, closing public roads, or putting city money up to guarantee a commercial airline. 

 

The closed meetings have to stop. 

 

Juanita Sumner

The clerk responded with her usual promise to keep trying to make it better, but Orme’s response was weird:

Ms. Sumner,

I am so sorry that you have been misled with regard to my opinions and desires.  All I’ve done – for years – has been reasonable, kind, forthcoming and responsive to you.  Yet you continue to falsely accuse me of things that are beyond my imagination, in addition to manipulate, stretch and weave untruths concerning my intentions and beliefs.  Let me be clear:

  1. I know people use/read the website – otherwise I would not have authorized its renewal to enable more capabilities for the public use.  As with all things “new”, it will take time to get it to a level of satisfaction for the users, as each department hears from the public on where things need to be more effectively designed.
  2. Feel free to share “the email [your friend] got from Mr. Orme”.  I would be happy to give you an accurate context to the response, as it looks like you have misread my intentions, albeit I have no idea what e-mail you’re referring to.
  3. I believe that meetings should have “human participation” as it is the best means of deliberating over items of public import.  No ifs, ands or buts.
  4. As for your opinions on what is important (essential) and what is not, that’s for the policy makers to determine what is a priority to bring forward and what is not.   Obviously, staff will bring forward items that are ready for consideration and also bring forward they are directed to by the City Council (it does not matter the political bent of the Council, as they were duly elected by the public).   Additionally, staff will not underhandly move items forward for their own manipulative reasons, but we are obligated to bring forward items that the Council desires to prioritize.  If staff brings something forward that Council disagrees with, the Council can simply decide not to hear those items.

I hope this brings clarity for your benefit. 

Sincerely,

Mark

I’m no shrink, but I think this is “passive/aggressive”.

https://classroom.synonym.com/what-is-passive-aggressive-communication-12084252.html

Passive-aggressive communicators will often use sarcasm as a way of masking their real feelings and opinions while also being inadvertently negative. They will give people the silent treatment and try to make people feel guilty to get what they want, says author and communication skills coach Barbara Small. Passive-aggressive communication also relies upon the subtle use of facial expressions and body language like pouting or smiling when in fact they are angry inside. They will try to appear pleasant and positive, but will simultaneously give off negative cues like ignoring you and trying to play the victim.

Saying you’re sorry when you’re not is “sarcasm”.  The crack “Feel free” is also sarcasm. He also tells me he’s been responsive to my questions – no, I’ve been including him in emails to the clerk but he has not responded until I mention the email a friend shared with me. Then he denies that he said it. And yes, he always tries to appear “pleasant and positive” but still makes some pretty ugly accusations toward me  – “ Yet you continue to falsely accuse me of things that are beyond my imagination, in addition to manipulate, stretch and weave untruths concerning my intentions and beliefs.”

What?

I recognize this kind of behavior because I get it a lot . People get annoyed when you keep asking them for something they don’t want to give you. Orme has taken “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” and I want it back.  He’s the one who continues to “recommend” closed meetings and draconian restrictions on personal behavior. So he’s the one I’m addressing my grievances to. 

The article tries to explain why this person would act this way:

The reasons behind why someone communicates in a passive-aggressive way has to do with the feelings they are experiencing about themselves and an inability to express this openly and honestly. If a person is experiencing some sort of internal conflict, for example if they feel inferior to a work colleague, jealous of a friend or helpless in a given situation, they act in a passive-aggressive manner as a means of dealing with the emotion. It offers them deniability so that they don’t have to take responsibility for how they are feeling and instead they can displace the negativity onto someone else, says Green Psychology. This inability to communicate in a direct and assertive manner is a learnt behavior, says Serenity Online Therapy, and might stem from an upbringing in a dysfunctional family whereby healthy and open communication was not encouraged or exemplified.

I’m sure Orme is under a tremendous amount of self-driven pressure. He came to Chico in 2013 as the Great White Hope, and promised to turn around our near bankrupt town. But he’s done nothing but drive it deeper into trouble, and he knows it. Yes, he’s heard criticism – not just from me. I told him I’d heard from “a man from Paradise” – it was not just “a man”, it’s everybody I meet from Paradise who finds out I live in Chico. I was astounded they even know who our city manager is – how many people can name their own city manager, much less the CM in a neighboring town?  Orme knows he’s on Shit Lists for miles around Chico, and that can make a man pretty paranoid. 

So, how did I deal with this? I didn’t shrink down, I got right back to him, nice and direct. I’m not going to walk away from a conversation just because somebody calls me a liar- that’s the oldest trick in the book. 

I think you are letting your imagination run a little wild Mr. Orme. I’m not manipulating, stretching or weaving anything.  I’m asking questions, and I’m telling you what I think, and that is well within my rights. And when I share this type of conversation on my blog, I include the emails in their entirety so everybody can see what exactly you are saying. 
I told you what another person shared with me after he had emailed you for information. I get a lot of complaints from people who have tried to contact city staffers or council /board members but get insufficient or no response. They also complain about the new website, the closed meetings, and one fellow from Paradise went on at length about your comments describing the Camp Fire refugees as a burden on the city. I just got a comment today suggesting you should get fired. I don’t make this stuff up. 
But no, I won’t share the email in question,  because it’s not mine. I would not repeat it to anyone but you and the clerk. The man asked you about documents that had not been posted on the website and you told him not only were you not legally required to give him the information but that most people never read the documents anyway. I can’t quote you verbatim but I saw the email. You were not “kind”. 
The policy makers? You’re the policy maker Mr. Orme. You were given emergency powers by the mayor. Furthermore, every agenda item comes with “Staff recommendation” – you set policy Mr. Orme, everybody knows that. 
Another “special” meeting tomorrow [7/28], with 24 hours notice?  This should be a town hall event, like those that have been held publicly, in person, in Paradise, for example. 
I guess we also disagree on the definition of “kind”.  While businesses go under all over town, with people waiting for their unemployment to run out, streets unmaintained, park a mess, Mr. Dowell just made a $9 million+ payment toward the UAL. That is a fact. You threaten to eliminate more positions if we don’t pass a tax, while hiring two completely new positions (PIO and Homeless coordinator). 
What’s a person supposed to “weave” from the vast expanse between your words and your actions? 
Juanita Sumner
Please write to mark.orme@chicoca.gov and tell him to open the meetings. Mayor Ann Schwab handed this guy the power to run our town, so he’s the Flak-catcher in Chief.  If he can’t stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.

 

 

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →