Saturday, February 28, 2015

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES March 2, 2015

AGENDA PACKET, REGULAR MEETING
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
March 2, 2015

Tac Mprwa Minutes 03-02-15
DRAFT MINUTES, REGULAR MEETING
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) 
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
March 2, 2015

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION AND WORK STUDY SESSION, March 2, 2015

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CLOSED SESSION AND WORK STUDY SESSION
Monday, March 2, 2015 – 4:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street
Between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
Carmel-by-the-Sea, California


2. ROLL CALL
Mayor: Burnett
Mayor Pro Tem: Beach
Council Members: Dallas, Talmage, Theis

 4. 4:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION

 Item 1: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1)
Name of Case: Steven McInchak, Plaintiff v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and does 1 through 50, inclusive, respondents Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M128062

Item 2: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Government Code Section 54956.9(b)
Significant exposure to litigation: 3 cases

Item 3: LABOR NEGOTIATIONS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.8
Agency Designated Representatives: Zutler
Employee Organization: LIUNA; CPOA

WORK STUDY SESSION
1. State of the Forest Presentation
Recommendation: Receive the Presentation.

State of the Forest 03-02-15
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STATE OF THE FOREST
Mike Branson
City Forester
March 2, 2015

Eleven Noteworthy 3 March 2015 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Items

ABSTRACT:  Eleven Noteworthy 3 March 2015 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Items are presented, namely ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND CITY ATTORNEY;  PUBLIC APPEARANCES, Monthly Reports for January 2015, including Police, Fire and Ambulance Reports, Code Compliance Reports, Public Records Act Requests (City Clerk & Police) and Forester Report; Leslie Ann Schratz v. Classic Art Gallery, et al. (Monterey Superior Court, Case No. M127145); Update on the work of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, including efforts to request a modification to the state-imposed Cease and Desist Order (CDO); Resolutions approving Professional Services Agreement amendments with Boots Road Group, LLC and Pacific Municipal Consultants; Status Report: The Municipal Organization---Past, Present and Future; Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to Execute Agreements with Paychex Flex Payroll Plan, Taxpay Service, Reporting and Human Resources Online Services; Treasurer’s Report by City Treasurer David Sandys; Consideration of requests to: 1) Reject the bids submitted in response to the Artisan Food Experience Farmers’ Market RFP and 2) Authorize the Farmers’ Market Ad Hoc Committee to revise the guidelines for the operation of the market; and Forest Theater: 1) Consideration of Receipt of a Donation in the amount of $10,000 to add an alternative to the bid package regarding “terracing”; 2) If donation is accepted, authorize amendment to the CAW contract for extra work related to the “terracing” alternative. Supporting materials, including Council Reports, are embedded.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, March 3, 2015 – 4:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street
Between Ocean and Seventh Avenues



2. ROLL CALL
Mayor: Burnett
Mayor Pro Tem: Beach
Council Members: Dallas, Talmage, Theis

5. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND CITY ATTORNEY

Item 5.A: Announcements from Closed Session
Item 1: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1)
Name of Case: Steven McInchak, Plaintiff v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and does 1 through 50, inclusive, respondents Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M128062

Item 2: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Government Code Section 54956.9(b)
Significant exposure to litigation: 3 cases

Item 3: LABOR NEGOTIATIONS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.8
Agency Designated Representatives: Zutler
Employee Organization: LIUNA; CPOA

Item 5.B: Announcements from City Council Members (Council Members may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement or report on his or her activities)

Item 5.C: Announcements from City Administrator

Item 5.D: Announcements from City Attorney

6. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City and are not on the agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar are to be acted upon by a single action of the City Council unless otherwise requested by an individual Council Member or the public for special consideration. Otherwise the recommendation of staff will be accepted and acted upon by majority voice vote.

Item 7.C: Monthly Reports for January 2015:
a. Police, Fire and Ambulance Reports
b. Code Compliance Reports
c. Public Records Act Requests (City Clerk & Police)
d. Forester Report
Recommendation: Accept the reports.


Item 7.D: Leslie Ann Schratz v. Classic Art Gallery, et al. (Monterey Superior Court, Case No. M127145)
Recommendation: Deny Classic Art Gallery’s Application for Late-Claim Relief to File a Claim against the City


Item 7.E: Update on the work of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, including efforts to request a modification to the state-imposed Cease and Desist Order (CDO)
Recommendation: Receive the update.


Item 7.F Resolutions approving Professional Services Agreement amendments with Boots Road Group, LLC and Pacific Municipal Consultants
Recommendations: a) Adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement (ASD-PCS-BRweb-06-13-14) with Boots Road Group, LLC for website support service for a not to exceed amount of $34,000;
b) Adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to Execute Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement (PBD-PSA-PMC-005-14/15) with Pacific Municipal Consultants for contract planning services for a not to exceed amount of $50,000.


Item 7.G: Status Report: The Municipal Organization---Past, Present and Future
Recommendation: Receive the report.


Item 7.J Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to Execute Agreements with Paychex Flex Payroll Plan, Taxpay Service, Reporting and Human Resources Online Services
Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution selecting Paychex Flex Payroll Plan, Taxpay Service, Reporting and Human Resources Online Services and authorize the City Administrator to execute a two year agreement with Paychex, and an additional two year extension for a not to exceed annual amount of $31,000 for Human Resources and Payroll System Services.


8. ORDERS OF COUNCIL
Item 8.B: Treasurer’s Report by City Treasurer David Sandys
Recommendation: Receive the Report.


Item 8.D: Consideration of requests to: 1) Reject the bids submitted in response to the Artisan Food Experience Farmers’ Market RFP and 2) Authorize the Farmers’ Market Ad Hoc Committee to revise the guidelines for the operation of the market
Recommendation: Reject the bids submitted in response to the Artisan Food Experience Farmers’ Market RFP, and authorize the Farmer’ Market Ad Hoc Committee to revise the guidelines for the operation of the market


Item 8.F Forest Theater: 1) Consideration of Receipt of a Donation in the amount of $10,000 to add an alternative to the bid package regarding “terracing”; 2) If donation is accepted, authorize amendment to the CAW contract for extra work related to the “terracing” alternative.
Recommendation: If donation is accepted, authorize the City Administrator to sign an amendment to the Cody Anderson Wasney Contract to add an alternate for “terracing” at Forest Theater.

CITY COUNCIL: Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting on January 15, 2015 & Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting on February 3, 2015

Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting on January 15, 2015 & Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting on February 3, 2015

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Public Agenda 3352, Consent Agenda Item 3, PROPOSED DECISION OF ALJ WILSON, DECISION ADOPTING, IN PART CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY, AND THE MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY, HELD TO 3/12/15, REASON Further Review

UPDATE:  Ron Weitzman: Expenditure secrecy fuels water deal heat 
By Ron Weitzman, Guest commentary The Monterey County Herald
Ron Weitzman is president of Water Ratepayers Association of the Monterey Peninsula, formerly WaterPlus.

ABSTRACT: The Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, according to Public Agenda 3352, was scheduled to consider Consent Agenda Item 3 (page 5), Thursday, February 26, 2015, namely Settlement Agreement between California-American Water Company, the County of Monterey, and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. Agenda Changes include Item 3, HELD TO 3/12/15, HELD BY Sandoval, REASON Further Review. The Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Public Agenda 3352 document, PROPOSED DECISION OF ALJ WILSON and AGENDA CHANGES document are embedded. The proposed settlement “calls for Cal Am to recoup $1.9 million from customers to cover costs it advanced to the county, with the county agreeing to waive a local ordinance and allow Cal Am to build its own plant without partnering with a public agency.” Importantly, PUC’s Office of Ratepayer Advocates “argued ratepayers shouldn’t be on the hook when the Peninsula’s biggest water provider has already spent $30 million of customer money on desal proposals that never panned out,” according to reporting in The Monterey County Herald.

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:
Grievances with Cal Am, county deal over failed desal plant are aired
By Jason Hoppin, Monterey County Herald
Posted: 02/25/15

Public Utilities Commission of the State of California
Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:30 a.m.
San Francisco, California
(Consent Agenda Item 3, page 5)

PROPOSED DECISION OF ALJ WILSON
DECISION ADOPTING, IN PART CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY, AND THE MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY
Settlement Agreement between California-American Water Company, the County of Monterey, and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency
A13-05-017
In the Matter of the Application of California- American Water Company for an Order (1) Approving a Settlement Agreement with the County of Monterey and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency to Settle and Resolve Claims and Issues Between the Parties and to Promote the Development, Construction and Operation of a Water Supply Project for Monterey County on an Expedited Basis, and (2) Authorizing the Transfer of Authorized Costs Related to the Settlement Agreement to Its Special Request 1 Surcharge Balancing Account

AGENDA CHANGES
February 26, 2015
Agenda No. 3352

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Proceeding Number A.13-05-017 E-MAIL RULING SETTING ORAL ARGUMENT FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2015 AT 10:00 AM

ABSTRACT:  Re: In the Matter of the Application of California- American Water Company (U210W) for an Order (1) Approving a Settlement Agreement with the County of Monterey and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency to Settle and Resolve Claims and Issues Between the Parties and to Promote the Development, Construction and Operation of a Water Supply Project for Monterey County on an Expedited Basis, and (2) Authorizing the Transfer of Authorized Costs Related to the Settlement Agreement to Its Special Request 1 Surcharge Balancing Account, E-MAIL RULING SETTING ORAL ARGUMENT FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2015 AT 10:00 AM document is embedded. The schedule is as follows:
Introduction by Judge Wilson 5 minutes
Opening Statements
Marina Coast Water District 10 minutes
Office of Ratepayer Advocates 5 minutes
Water Plus 5 minutes
Citizens for Public Water 5 minutes
Public Trust Alliance 5 minutes
County of Monterey/Monterey County Water Resources Agency 5 minutes
California-American Water 10 minutes
Replies
Marina Coast Water District 3 minutes
Office of Ratepayer Advocates 3 minutes
Water Plus 3 minutes
Citizens for Public Water 3 minutes
Public Trust Alliance 3 minutes
County of Monterey/Monterey County Water Resources Agency 3 minutes
California-American Water 3 minutes

Filing Date 2-10-15
E-MAIL RULING SETTING ORAL ARGUMENT FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2015 AT 10:00 AM

REFERENCES:
Debate over regional desal project pact set for next week
By Jim Johnson, Monterey Herald
Posted: 02/20/15

CPUC judge sets public debate on regional project deal
By Jim Johnson, Monterey Herald
Posted: 02/10/15

Monday, February 16, 2015

Don’t Take ‘No’ for an Answer in Pursuit of Agency Records, Vol.12, No.5, CGJA Grand Jurors’ Journal, October 2011

ABSTRACT:  The CALIFORNIA GRAND JURORS' ASSOCIATION (CGJA), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, publishes the Grand Jurors’ Journal.  The CGJA’s MISSION STATEMENT (Revised April  2014): “To promote, preserve, and support the grand jury system through training, education, and outreach.”  Don’t Take “No” for an Answer in the Pursuit of Local Agency Records, By Bill Trautman, Chair CGJA Legislative Affairs Committee, states, in part, “The United States Supreme Court has also affirmed that a grand jury cannot be required to justify the issuance of a grand jury subpoena by presenting evidence of good cause because the very purpose of requesting the information may be to determine the facts which would establish good cause. Therefore, such a requirement cannot lawfully be applied.” “An agency may also try to raise an objection to producing records pertaining to its employees on the basis that notice to the employee whose records are being sought must be given. Courts have readily recognized that notice to the employee would infringe on the need for confidentiality of grand jury proceedings. A requirement of notice to an employee seeking his or her permission for a grand jury review of a personnel record would be incompatible with the right of a grand jury to review confidential information. Johnson v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. 3rd 248, 254 (1975). The first question by an employee when asked to allow the grand jury to obtain his or her personnel file will be; “Why does the grand jury want it?” Obviously, that question cannot be answered without disclosing information about the investigation. Thus, Courts have held that there is no basis for requiring notice to the “consumer”/ employee for no other reason than the confidentiality strictures placed on the grand jury prevents it from giving the employee sufficient information to frame a meaningful objection.”   And importantly, “a grand jury seeks such records pursuant to the express direction of Penal Code sections 925 and 925a. While there are some exceptions to obtaining records, such as Welfare and Institutions Code section 827(a)(1)(P) (juvenile court records) where confidential requirements of such records may outweigh the grand jury’s investigative function, these exceptions are few. So don’t take “No” as an answer to your request for records from local governmental agencies. The law is on your  side!”
CGJA tries to avoid the use of the term "Civil" Grand Jury because the term is not recognized in California law and CGJA believes the use of the term as a shorthand reference is misleading. We prefer to use the following form - "(Name of County) Grand Jury."

REFERENCES:

Friday, February 13, 2015

CITY OF WOODLAKE, ET AL., Plaintiff/Respondent,v. TULARE COUNTY GRAND JURY, Defendant/ Appellant, Case No.: F060737, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

Disposition
City of Woodlake et al. v. Tulare County Grand Jury 
Case Number F060737

Description:
Reversed in Full
Date:
08/01/2011
Status:
Final
The order of June 3, 2010, is reversed insofar as it quashed, or declined to enforce, the grand jury subpoena duces tecum, and to the extent it required the grand jury to attach "an affidavit showing good cause for the production" of documents as a condition of the issuance of any further subpoenas directing respondent City of Woodlake, or its police department, to produce records. Detjen, Cornell, Franson (12 pgs)
Publication Status:
Signed Published
Author:
 Detjen, Jennifer R.S.
Participants:
Cornell, Dennis A. (Concur)
Franson, Jr., Donald R. (Concur) 

OPINION (Filed 8/1/11)
CITY OF WOODLAKE, ET AL., Plaintiff/Respondent,v. TULARE COUNTY GRAND JURY, Defendant/ Appellant, Case No.: F060737, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

Brief
Due Date
Date Filed
Party and
Attorney
Notes
Appellant's opening brief.
 
12/10/2010
Defendant and Appellant: Tulare County Grand Jury
Attorney: John F. Sliney
 
with amended proof of service
copy to csmgr
 

Brief
Due Date
Date Filed
Party and
Attorney
Respondent's brief.
 
01/07/2011
Plaintiff and Respondent: City of Woodlake
Attorney: Thomas T. Watson
 


Brief
Due Date
Date Filed
Party and
Attorney
Appellant's reply brief filed.
 
02/24/2011
Defendant and Appellant: Tulare County Grand Jury
Attorney: John F. Sliney
 

CALIFORNIA COURTS, THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF CALIFORNIA, Civil Grand Jury, & Monterey County Civil Grand Jury 2014-2015

CALIFORNIA COURTS
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF CALIFORNIA

Civil Grand Jury

Every year, in each of California's 58 counties, a group of ordinary citizens takes an oath to serve as grand jurors. Its function is to investigate the operations of the various officers, departments and agencies of local government. Each Civil Grand Jury determines which officers, departments and agencies it will investigate during its term of office.

What is a county grand jury?
In California, the grand jury system consists of 58 separate grand juries—one in each county—that are convened on an annual basis by the Superior Court to carry out three functions:
  • Investigating and reporting on the operations of local government (which is known as the "watchdog " function a civil, rather than criminal function),
  • Issuing criminal indictments to require defendants to go to trial on felony charges, and
  • Investigating allegations of a public official’s corrupt or willful misconduct in office, and when warranted, filing an "accusation" against that official to remove him or her from office. The accusation process is considered to be "quasi-criminal" in nature.
What does a grand jury do?
With regard to its watchdog authority, the grand jury is well suited to the effective investigation of local governments because it is an independent body, operationally separate from the entities and officials it investigates. It conducts its investigations under the auspices of the Superior Court and has broad access to public officials, employees, records and information.

The grand jury's fact-finding efforts result in written reports which contain specific recommendations aimed at identifying problems and offering recommendations for improving government operations and enhancing responsiveness. In this way, the grand jury acts as a representative of county residents in promoting government accountability.

In some counties, the regular grand jury issues indictments. In others, the Superior Court, at the request of the District Attorney, impanels a separate "criminal grand jury" to hear evidence in support of an indictment. Accusations, which are also filed and taken to trial by the District Attorney, are filed infrequently. Overall, grand juries throughout the state spend considerably more time on investigating and reporting on local government operations than they do on criminal matters. CGJA does not get involved in the any criminal indictment matters; however, the Penal Code requires the Grand Jury to:
  • Inquire into the condition and management of the detention facilities within the County
  • Investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of county and other local public agencies, officers, departments or functions
  • Inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers, and,
  • Submit a final report of its Findings and Recommendations no later than the end of its term to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
The local governmental entity to which a report is directed is required to answer both the Findings and Recommendations in writing and within a specified period of time after the issuance of the final report (60 days for officials or agency heads; 90 days for governing bodies).

How does a grand jury operate?
As a truly independent body, each grand jury is free to choose which local governmental entities or public officials to investigate. With very limited exceptions, no one outside the grand jury can direct it to conduct an investigation. Ideas for investigations generally come by way of three avenues:
  • citizen complaints,
  • matters raised by the members of the grand jury, and
  • referrals from the preceding grand jury.
 During its investigations, the grand jury acts as a finder of fact. In addition to determining if the official or entity under investigation is adhering to the laws that govern the operations of that entity, the jury analyzes whether the entity is operating in a businesslike manner and providing public services effectively and economically.

While it has no authority to order or otherwise compel compliance with its recommendations, it is through its reports that the grand jury wields its power.

What gives the grand jury authority?
Grand juries have existed in this state since the adoption of California's original Constitution in 1849-50. Section 23 of Article 1 of the state Constitution requires that a grand jury "be drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county." This Constitutional mandate is supported by statutory provisions found in the following:
  • Sections 888 through 939.91 of the California Penal Code—relating to the selection and impanelling of grand jurors and to the grand jury's watchdog and indictment functions.
  • Government Code sections 3060 through 3075—covers the grand jury's accusation process.
Many of the statutory provisions relative to the grand jury have been reviewed and interpreted by the California Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal. Their written opinions, known as "case law," clarify the powers and duties of the grand jury. Because of the complexity of state law, the legislature has provided legal assistants for each county grand jury:
  • A judge of the Superior Court
  • The District Attorney
  • The County Counsel
  • The state Attorney General (under certain circumstances).
In addition, the law requires the Superior Court to ensure that each incoming grand jury receives training to help it understand these laws; this training also provides practical advice on conducting watchdog investigations and writing grand jury reports. Most grand juries are given a local orientation program in addition to attending training provided by CGJA.

For more information on the laws related to the grand jury, go to CA Codes.

Who serves on county civil grand juries?
Civic-minded citizens who have chosen to give back to their communities by collaborating with a diverse group of like-minded persons over a one-year period to evaluate the operations of local governmental entities and the conduct of public officials, and to develop practical innovative recommendations for improving government operations.

Grand jurors are agents of change in their communities. They come from all walks of life. They bring with them a broad range of interests, talents and life experiences, but they share a dedication to democratic ideals and a willingness to devote their time and energies to matters of civic importance.
Drawing from the life experiences of these citizens, "…(a) grand jury is a short-lived, representative, non-political body of citizens functioning without hope of personal aggrandizement. It comes from the citizens at large and soon disappears into its anonymity without individual recognition or personal reward…" (Noah Weinstein and William J. Shaw, Grand Jury Reports—A Safeguard of Democracy, 1962, Wash. U.L.Q., 191,191.)

All qualified persons are encouraged and welcome to apply for grand jury service.


What are the requirements to be a grand juror?
Penal Code section 893 states that a person is qualified to be a grand juror if he or she:
  • Is a citizen of the United States,
  • Is at least 18 years old,
  • Has been a resident of the county for at least one year immediately prior to selection,
  • Possesses ordinary intelligence, sound judgment, and good character, and
  • Possesses a sufficient knowledge of the English language to communicate both orally and in writing.
There are only four disqualifiers. A person is ineligible to act as a grand juror if he or she:
  • Is serving as a trial juror in a state court at the time of selection,
  • Has been discharged from grand jury service within the preceding year,
  • Has been convicted of malfeasance in office or any felony or other high crime, or
  • Is serving as an elected public officer.
No particular background, training or experience is necessary to be a grand juror. In fact, it is the diversity of its members that is one of the grand jury’s greatest strengths.


The Jurors for the 2014-15 Civil Grand Jury, and the communities within which they reside, are:

Brandon Hill, Foreperson (Salinas)
Louis Panetta, Foreperson Pro Tem (Monterey)
Robert Barry (Prunedale)
Michael Berube (Carmel Valley)
Gary Breschini (Salinas)
John Byrne (Monterey)
Jeane Errea (San Ardo)
Sol Gonzalvo (Salinas)
Alis Gumbiner(Monterey)
William Harris (Carmel)
Patrick Healy (Carmel by the Sea)
Peter Hiller (Carmel)
Barbara Mejia (Salinas)
Vicki Nohrden (Carmel)
Roger Powers (Salinas)
Francis M. Small, Jr. (Carmel)
Judee Timm (Carmel)
Kathleen Wall (Monterey)
Olivia Yates (Pebble Beach)

REFERENCES:
Don’t Take ‘No’ for an Answer in Pursuit of Agency Records”, Vol.12, No.5, CGJA Grand Jurors’Journal, October 2011, page 9.


Questions Regarding Grand Jury Investigations:
23.
 
Q. Can a local governmental agency refuse to produce records requested by a grand jury?
A. No, with those few exception where the confidentiality requirements of such records (e.g., juvenile court records or psychiatric records) may outweigh the grand jury’s investigative function.  See City of Woodlake v. The Tulare County Grand Jury (197 Cal. App. 4th 1293 (2011); see also “Don’t Take ‘No’ for an Answer in Pursuit of Agency Records”, Vol.12, No.5, CGJA Grand Jurors’ Journal, October 2011.

When a Grand Jury Seeks Records of a Public Agency it is Not Required to Provide an Affidavit Establishing Good Cause, LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE, August 10, 2011

Council will not provide personnel files to grand jury, By MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone, February 13, 2015, 1A & 24 A

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, REGULAR MEETING, CANCELLATION NOTICE, February 19, 2015

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
REGULAR MEETING, CANCELLATION NOTICE
February 19, 2015

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REQUEST, November 2014

ABSTRACT: The November 2014 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Request, Citizens' Complaint, regarding the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea's governance was presented to the Monterey County Civil Grand Jury in early November 2014 on behalf of many in the community.  The drafting committee consisted of Richard Kreitman, Carolina Bayne, Leron Paterson, Jeanne Levett, Jonathan Sapp, Bill Sharpe, and Chris Tescher, the first four names appearing as the joint-signatories on the complaint form.  The Main Text Document is embedded.  NATURE OF COMPLAINT: Failed Governance and Oversight in Carmel-by-the-Sea, including Unfair Treatment and Terminations of Carmel City Employees; Extreme Lack of Transparency and Non-Responsiveness to Public Records Act Requests; Fiscal Irresponsibility Regarding Legal Expenses and Legal Exposure; Fiscal Irresponsibility Regarding Outside Consulting Contracts; Loss of Institutional Memory, Deterioration of City Services; and Cronyism. ACTION REQUESTED: “We respectfully ask the Monterey County Civil Grand Jury to look into how and why City governance and oversight failed in Carmel-by-the-Sea and permitted this to go on. To determine what lapses in policy, procedure, oversight, behavior, and judgment contributed to the breakdowns and problems encountered by Carmel-by-the-Sea and how we and other Monterey County municipalities can avoid such trouble in the future. Specifically we would appreciate the Civil Grand Jury’s recommendations for how governance and government structure in Carmel can be improved so this won’t happen to us again.”   At the November 4, 2014, Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council meeting Mayor Jason Burnett read into the record a letter from the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council to the foreperson of the Civil Grand Jury requesting "the Civil Grand Jury review our organization, our corrective actions and make any additional recommendations."  And the MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY brochure document, including sections on SELECTION PROCESS, STRUCTURE, COMPENSATION, HISTORY, FUNCTIONS, RESPONSIBILITIES, CITIZEN CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS, FINAL REPORT, COMMITMENT, QUALIFICATIONS and DISQUALIFICATION, is embedded.

November 2014 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Request

MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY Brochure
SELECTION PROCESS, STRUCTURE, COMPENSATION, HISTORY, FUNCTIONS, RESPONSIBILITIES, CITIZEN CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS, FINAL REPORT, COMMITMENT, QUALIFICATIONS and DISQUALIFICATION

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Two Noteworthy 11 February 2015 Planning Commission Municipal Projects Agenda Items

ABSTRACT:  Two Noteworthy 11 February 2015 Planning Commission Municipal Projects Agenda Items regarding Mission Trail Nature Preserve are presented.  Consideration of a Municipal Project (MP 15-032) and associated Coastal Development Permit application for alterations to the Mission Trail Nature Preserve signage. The City proposes to change the mounting of the Preserve signage and relocate the entry signs at five entrances to the Preserve (Rio Rd., Eleventh Ave., Martin Rd., Mt. View Ave., and 25800 Hatton Rd.).  And Consideration of a Municipal Project (MP 15-033) and associated Coastal Development Permit for alterations to the Mission Trail Nature Preserve Mt. View Ave entry for the purpose of improving public safety. The Agenda and Planning Commission Reports document are embedded

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
February 11, 2015 Wednesday
Tour: 2:15 p.m
Meeting: 4:00 p.m.

City Hall
East Side of Monte Verde Street
Between Ocean & Seventh Avenues


CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Regular Meeting
February 11, 2015 Wednesday

A. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Commissioners: Jan Reimers, Chair
Michael LePage, Vice-Chair
Keith Paterson
Don Goodhue
Ian Martin

I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.

3. MP 15-032 (City of Carmel)
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Mission Trail Nature Preserve
APNs: 010-061-006, 010-061-007, 009-341-008, 009-341-001

Consideration of a Municipal Project (MP 15-032) and associated Coastal Development Permit application for alterations to the Mission Trail Nature Preserve signage. The City proposes to change the mounting of the Preserve signage and relocate the entry signs at five entrances to the Preserve (Rio Rd., Eleventh Ave., Martin Rd., Mt. View Ave., and 25800 Hatton Rd.).

4. MP 15-033 (City of Carmel)
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Mission Trail Nature Preserve
Southeast corner of Mountain View Ave. and Forest Road
APN: 010-061-006

Consideration of a Municipal Project (MP 15-033) and associated Coastal Development Permit for alterations to the Mission Trail Nature Preserve Mt. View Ave entry for the purpose of improving public safety.