Paul Valery: Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them

21 Aug

Since the COnVID shut down, I do almost all my shopping online. I’m not talking about major purchases, but anything that generates sales tax. One day I noticed the shampoo bottle was almost tapped, so I ordered some. They offer free shipping with a $35 purchase, so I bought a brake cable for my bike, some shirts for my husband, and a new winter bed sheet (I know, it’s hard to imagine right now, how cold your ass is going to be in a few months, and then all the winter bedding will be sold out).

I had the shampoo within 4 days. 

I’m still waiting for the break cable, which came from an East Coast vendor. My husband is fixing up my old bike, it’s been sitting in the shed ever since the brake cable snapped on me at a really inconvenient bend in the road. The back tire needs replacing – another online order, next time we need toothpaste.

I like online shopping. I used to hate it when I had my PO box in Chico. My family has had packages lost, packages destroyed, packages stolen from, at the Chico Post office. I had to do the “Repo Man grab” for the last package – the staffers were unwilling to look for it in the mess of their backroom, they just kept sending me away. Finally,  I insisted that one clerk look at the tracking number, and finally he comes sheepishly out of the back room with package.

We’ve tried having packages delivered to Fed Ex and UPS but found the same problem – lazy staffers who wouldn’t do their job.  News flash – Larry Wahl sold his UPS stores, and the new owners are out-of-towners who don’t  give a shit, and charge $5 for pick-up.  UPS and FedEx drivers are great, but if you’re not going to be home, do you want a package laying on your doorstep? In this town? 

So, when a transient lit a fire in the annex where our box was contained, and later when we heard reports that boxes were continually getting broken into at the annex where they relocated us,

Investigation continues into P.O. box break-ins at Chico, Durham post offices

we decided we should move our post office box. Out of town. We found out you can get a PO box in any one of half dozen nearby towns, for the same rate, and the service and security are worlds apart from Chico post office. Orland, for example, is great, and only 30 minutes away.

I grew up on a farm. We always had to drive, everywhere, this is nothing new to me. And while we are picking up our mail, we can hit the grocery store – smaller towns are more likely to respect the exemptions to the mask mandate –  mine being, it cuts off the oxygen to your brain.

Do you “dine out”? My husband and I used to eat out a lot, when Chico was a nice, clean town. That all ended when they got a new health inspector for Butte County and suddenly we found notices on the doors of many of our favorite eateries, saying they’d been closed due to unsanitary conditions. We noticed, none of the taco wagons had been shut down, so now we don’t eat anywhere that doesn’t have wheels.

Wake up, restaurants are dirty, if you haven’t been in the kitchen, you shouldn’t eat there. But now, the city has mandated outside dining. They’ve shut down Downtown three nights a week for restaurants to take over the sidewalks. Well, I hope they’re enjoying the temperatures, air quality, and don’t forget the flies. All over downtown this time of year the flies are on everything. In this heat, you have an ambience of garbage and human excrement that brings them buzzing in. Add floating ash and the smell of a wet camp fire, and you have a recipe for failure of small restaurants all over town.

So you’d think the city of Chico would be strangling financially from all these losses. No, plenty of businesses are thriving. Liquor stores all over town are ringing up record sales, while bar owners pay their rent and watch the calendar.

A friend of mine recently remarked that the shut down is ruining lives, and people are very depressed, even suicidal.  I agree – my neighbor has been acting completely out of character. But who do you call? Butte County Behavioral Health complains that calls are down? What?

With calls and funding down, Behavioral Health focuses on restaffing, crisis intervention

CHICO — While statewide suicide prevention measures are under review, Butte County Behavioral Health faces high budget cuts this year with fewer resources available.

Residents like John Doe in Oroville using the county’s mental health services worry there is a reduced amount of staff available to help family members or themselves with mental health issues, and that phone counseling is “not the same” as in-person services.

Doe said he and his daughter were told there would be no more in-person counseling as well as fewer phone counseling services. He feels telehealth is not the same as it is less personal and “there’s nothing like face-to-face.”

“They got essential workers working at Walmart and they can’t even put these mental health workers as essential workers?” Doe said. “Mental health workers need to be essential. They are just as essential as people hooking up respirators. Services like this should not be disregarded.”

I agree with John Doe, but I don’t think it’s a funding issue, I think it’s a spending issue. Look at the first page of Butte County salaries – two Behavioral Health Workers get paid more than $200,000/each, plus benefits. The psychiatrist who gets almost as much as the county manager doesn’t even work in Butte County, but meets with the board via computer. 

https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/Counties/County.aspx?entityid=4&year=2019

Here’s just Behavioral Health – look at these salaries and benefits packages. For “managers”? What do they “manage”?

https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/Counties/County.aspx?entityid=4&year=2019

And they’re telling us, they don’t have resources? 

Well, you can call that in to your county supervisors cause their meetings are still closed. They have a better comments system, but, “Board of Supervisors meetings will  be closed to the public and all non-essential County staff for the foreseeable future. “

I read a great quote the other day, attributed to Paul Valery in the LA Times: “Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them.”  I’d say, we’ve elected a bunch of artists to public positions, and we need to put a candle to their asses to open the county and towns again. 

Tags: , , ,

Letter to council: Masks don’t work, end the mandate before you kill our town

19 Aug

Dear Council and Staff,

Thank you for rescheduling last night’s meeting. This morning there was ash all over my front patio and in spider webs around my yard.  It would have been onerous to have to stand out in 3-digit heat and deadly air quality, and the alternative – another closed meeting – is unacceptable.

 

You may have read this – a study of 14 masks at Duke University recently went viral. Here’s one article that details the findings:

 

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

 “It’s not the case that any mask is better than nothing,” he said. “There are some masks that actually hurt rather than do good.”

​The study showed that gaitors, bandanas, and homemade masks are actually bad – watch the video – “the porous fabric seems to break bigger particles into smaller particles, which are more likely to linger in the air.”

 

Meanwhile this study confirmed what I have suspected – the N95’s are the only ones that truly protect anybody, followed not too closely by real surgical masks with three layers of material. 

 

Right now N95’s are going for as much as $5 per mask. The boxes my husband and I used to buy for about $1 a mask are all sold out and Home Depot reports they are donating those to hospitals. Doesn’t this come under the “no gouging” ordinance you passed after the Camp Fire? I have not heard of one business being cited for gouging, but you threaten $1,000 for not wearing a mask? 

 

While the faux surgical masks are cheaper and more available,  they are not nearly as good according to the study. Wearing those outside with smoke and ash, I can feel ash moving in and out. They’re one size fits all and if you’re not the right size, too bad for you. I also see most people leaving their nose out, people wearing them like a beard on their chin, and people wearing outrageously filthy masks. I also see them all over the ground at retail centers, like those “single use plastic bags” Ann banned a few years back.

Those bags certainly made a comeback, when it was determined reusable bags are unsanitary and stores asked us to leave them in our cars. And at first, they gave us the film bags for free – now they are charging us again. That’s more gouging. 

Finally, I’ll say, it’s true, people get a false sense of security from masks. Every trip to the grocery store I have people wearing useless “face diapers” step right into my body space, some actually bump and touch. 

The new fines for not masking are outrageous. You put fascist rules on law-abiding citizens while you allow transients to destroy our parks and waterways, and threaten the local economy. You say your hands are tied by Newsom’s mandate, but elsewhere communities are standing up and law enforcement agencies are refusing to enforce. The mask mandate is not about safety, it’s about conformity.  Don’t you people have the guts to stand up for your constituents? Would you really rather kill the local economy than stand up to Sacramento? 

Is it really that the city is just too dependent on the state for money? Because our local economy is so weak, we have to take handouts for stuff like declaring a shelter crisis in order to pay staffers and their pension deficit? 

Sincerely, Juanita Sumner

Mask guidelines – know your rights

17 Aug

Where and when are masks required?

— Inside or in line to enter indoor public spaces.

— In hospitals, pharmacies, medical clinics or other healthcare offices.

— While waiting for and riding public transportation, taxis or ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft. Drivers should also wear masks.

— In work places that require interacting with the public, where food is prepared, packaged or delivered, or when sharing common spaces such as elevators and hallways.

— In office settings where people cannot physically distance.

— While outside if it’s not possible to stay six feet away from others.

Who is exempt?

— Children age 2 and younger.

— People with medical, mental health or developmental issues that prevent it.

— People who are deaf or have hearing loss and those who communicate with them if seeing someone’s mouth is essential.

— Workers who would violate workplace safety rules by wearing one.

— People eating and drinking at restaurants.

— People swimming, walking, hiking, biking, running or doing other outdoor activity where they can stay 6 feet from others.

— People in jails and prisons, which have their own guidance on face coverings.

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: , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →