ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the MOTION FOR RECIRCULATION OF THE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE COMMISSION’S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PUB. RESOURCES CODE § 21092, subd. (b)) document copy is embedded. CONCLUSION MCWD requests that an order or ruling issue promptly, requiring that:
1) All of the documents referenced in the DEIR for the MPWSP and the Appendices thereto be made readily accessible to the public for review;
2) The NOA of the DEIR for the MPWSP be re-circulated;
3) The re-circulated NOA include a clear statement of the location(s) where the documents referenced in the DEIR for the MPWSP and the Appendices thereto are available for public review; and
4) The re-circulated NOA restart the public comment period for the DEIR.
Filing Date 6-19-15
MOTION FOR RECIRCULATION OF THE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE COMMISSION’S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PUB. RESOURCES CODE § 21092, subd. (b))
Filing Date 6-19-15
Attachment 1
DECLARATION OF RUTH STONER MUZZIN IN SUPPORT OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR RECIRCULATION OF THE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE COMMISSION’S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PUB. RESOURCES CODE § 21092, subd. (b))
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MOTION OF CURE TO BECOME A PARTY
ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the MOTION OF CURE TO BECOME A PARTY document copy is embedded. Pursuant to Rule 1.4 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, California Unions for Reliable Energy (“CURE”) respectfully submits its motion to become a party to this proceeding.
Filing Date 6-22-15MOTION OF CURE TO BECOME A PARTY
Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 E-MAIL RULING SHORTENING TIME TO RESPOND TO MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR RECIRCULATION OF NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the E-MAIL RULING SHORTENING TIME TO RESPOND TO MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR RECIRCULATION OF NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT document copy is embedded. IT IS RULED that responses to the June 19, 2015 motion of Marina Coast Water District for recirculation of the Notice of Availability of the Commission's Draft Environmental Impact Report shall be filed by one day from the date of electronic service of this ruling.
E-MAIL RULING SHORTENING TIME TO RESPOND TO MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR RECIRCULATION OF NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
E-MAIL RULING SHORTENING TIME TO RESPOND TO MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR RECIRCULATION OF NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 E-MAIL RULING DENYING JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULE FOR SUBMISSION OF BRIEFING
ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the E-MAIL RULING DENYING JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULE FOR SUBMISSION OF BRIEFING document copy is embedded. IT IS RULED that the May 19, 2015 joint motion to modify the schedule for submission of briefing is denied.
E-MAIL RULING DENYING JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULE FOR SUBMISSION OF BRIEFING
E-MAIL RULING DENYING JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULE FOR SUBMISSION OF BRIEFING
Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MOTION OF OBJECTION TO CURE MOTION FOR PARTY STATUS DATED JUNE 22, 2015
ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the MOTION OF OBJECTION TO CURE MOTION FOR PARTY STATUS DATED JUNE 22, 2015 document copy is embedded.
Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 E-MAIL RULING GRANTING MOTION OF CURE FOR PARTY STATUS WITH GUIDANCE ON DEIR COMMENTS AND ISSUES FOR BRIEFS
ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the E-MAIL RULING GRANTING MOTION OF CURE FOR PARTY STATUS WITH GUIDANCE ON DEIR COMMENTS AND ISSUES FOR BRIEFS document copy is embedded. IT IS RULED that the June 22, 2015 motion of California Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE) to become a party is granted. In addition, CURE and all parties shall note the guidance and reminders stated in the body of this ruling regarding the matters to address in comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and those to address in briefs.
E-MAIL RULING GRANTING MOTION OF CURE FOR PARTY STATUS WITH GUIDANCE ON DEIR COMMENTS AND ISSUES FOR BRIEFS
E-MAIL RULING GRANTING MOTION OF CURE FOR PARTY STATUS WITH GUIDANCE ON DEIR COMMENTS AND ISSUES FOR BRIEFS
Monday, June 29, 2015
PUBLIC WORKSHOP: Paid Parking Pilot Program
WHAT: Paid Parking Pilot Program
WHEN: Tuesday, June 30, 3025 @ 4:30 P.M.
WHERE: Carmel Woman’s Club
San Carlos St. & 9th Av., S.W. Corner
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.
Friday, June 26, 2015
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA, June 29, 2015
Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
June 29, 2015
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA PACKETJune 29, 2015
Thursday, June 25, 2015
Carmel Resident Carolyn Hardy: ‘…it was clear they were sweet-talked by a silver-tongued smoothie who had the ability to charm. The GJ fell, hook, line and sinker.'
ABSTRACT: For a cogent and accurate analysis of the Stilwell/Paul tenure in the context of the Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA A GOVERNANCE REVIEW, read Carolyn Hardy’s “assortment” of comments on the MCCGJ, the report, PRA Inquires, Regarding contracts, Hiring of Sue Paul, Legal Counsel Issues and Missing Alcock Report on MONTEREY BAY PARTISAN, GRAND
JURY REPORT: Pine Cone’s slanted coverage created Carmel City Hall crisis by Royal Calkins on June 20, 2015 .
GRAND
JURY REPORT: Pine Cone’s slanted coverage created Carmel City Hall crisis on
June 20, 2015, MONTEREY
BAY PARTISAN
Comments, Carolyn Hardy June 23,
2015, 11:39 pm
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) DIRECTORS & TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) JOINT SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES June 23, 2015
AGENDA PACKET, JOINT SPECIAL MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) DIRECTORS & TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
June 23, 2015
DRAFT Application to Modify CDO Clean 19 June 15
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) DIRECTORS & TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
June 23, 2015
DRAFT Application to Modify CDO Clean 19 June 15
DRAFT 06/19/15
Attorneys for CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
APPLICATION TO MODITY CEASE AND DESIST ORDER WR 2009-0060
In the Matter of the Unauthorized Diversion and Use of Water
by the California American Water Company, Cease and Desist Order WR 2009-0060
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
Review of CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
(MPWSP) DEIR
June 23, 2015
Geosyntec consultants
Review of Subsurface Seawater Intakes DEIR, Monterey Desal
Project
DRAFT Presentation to
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
23 June 2015
Geosyntec consultants
Review of Brine Disposal System DEIR, Monterey Desal Project
DRAFT Presentation to
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
23 June 2015
Geosyntec consultants
DRAFT MINUTES
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
June 23, 2015
DRAFT MINUTES
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
June 23, 2015
Monday, June 22, 2015
COMMENTARY ‘No Credible Evidence’ of ‘Wrongdoing’ by Ex-City Administrator Jason Stilwell & Ex-Administrative Services Director Susan Paul?
FINDING 12 of the 2014/15 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury (MCCGJ) Carmel Investigative Committee’s Report entitled CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA A GOVERNANCE REVIEW states “There was no credible evidence to support allegations of contract splitting, cronyism or any other wrongdoing under Mr. Stilwell or Ms. Paul.”
Yet, the MCCGJ Report on Carmel Governance contains acts of “wrongdoing,” as defined as improper conduct, misconduct or misdoing, including acts of omission and commission, that are directly attributable to former City Administrator Jason Stilwell and former Administrative Services Director Susan Paul. To wit, referring to Forensic Examiner Mark Alcock’s second and third contracts with the City, “There appeared to be a practice of allowing the consultant to overrun the contract amounts, followed by a “catchup” City Council-authorized contract amendment.”
Yet, the MCCGJ Report on Carmel Governance contains acts of “wrongdoing,” as defined as improper conduct, misconduct or misdoing, including acts of omission and commission, that are directly attributable to former City Administrator Jason Stilwell and former Administrative Services Director Susan Paul. To wit, referring to Forensic Examiner Mark Alcock’s second and third contracts with the City, “There appeared to be a practice of allowing the consultant to overrun the contract amounts, followed by a “catchup” City Council-authorized contract amendment.”
Moreover, the Report states “A review of the files covering contracts generated during their tenure showed that a number contained the same issues that they were trying to remedy—missing statements of work, payment schedules, and milestone measurements.”
And the MCCGJ Report states “It is the responsibility of the Administrator to make certain that municipal laws and ordinances are enforced, to oversee fiscal and budgetary matters, to manage all employee actions, and to provide administrative direction for the day-to-day operations of all departmental activities." But, according to FINDING 18, “There was no evidence of any systematic review of contracts in excess of $25,000 by legal counsel as to form or content." Certainly with all the contracting with outside legal counsel authorized by then-City Administrator Jason Stilwell, Mr. Stilwell certainly should have contracted with legal counsel to review contracts “as to form or content.” And Mr. Stilwell was certainly in a position to make certain that the City Treasurer was not “isolated from any meaningful role in the contract/invoice disbursements and tracking system.” Yet, FINDINGS 17 states “The City Treasurer was isolated from any meaningful role in the contract/invoice disbursements and tracking system.”
Additionally, with respect to the City Security System Audit Report (2013), a report estimated to be 150 pages identifying “800 security vulnerabilities,” that the MCCGJ made RECOMMENDATION 3 “The City immediately procure or upgrade to an appropriate IT System and secure the data network” is evidence that then-City Administrator Jason Stilwell failed to remedy IT issues which arguably should have been remedied early during his three-year tenure.
As for other possible “wrongdoing” by then-City Administrator Jason Stilwell and then-Administrative Services Director Susan Paul, the MCCGJ Report’s failure to address their actions and conduct regarding the two separate investigations of IT Misconduct; one investigation into Plaintiffs possible criminal activity ("Criminal Investigation"), and the second investigation into the IT Misconduct and related job performance of Plaintiff in his capacity as an employee of the City ("Administrative Investigation"), and the decision to not forward the “Criminal Investigation” findings to the Monterey County District Attorney’s Office given Search Warrant No. 7682 checked statements of “Property or things used as a means of committing a felony” and “Property or things that are evidence that tends to show a felony has been committed, or tends to show that a particular person has committed a felony,” is significant due to the nature of the Criminal Investigation and to its noticeable absence from the MCCGJ Report. Subsequent to the MCCGJ Report, on June 17, 2015, the City settled the McInchak’s matter for $275,000.
F11. Ms. Paul was an experienced Administrative Services Director who quickly recognized areas of mismanagement and risk for the City and implemented solutions within what she understood to be her areas of authority with due diligence and proper municipal procedure. Her decisive by-the-book actions and abrupt manner caused resentment among longtime employees and City residents, which may have been avoided with more sensitivity on her part to the City’s culture.
Written & Published by L. A. Paterson
And the MCCGJ Report states “It is the responsibility of the Administrator to make certain that municipal laws and ordinances are enforced, to oversee fiscal and budgetary matters, to manage all employee actions, and to provide administrative direction for the day-to-day operations of all departmental activities." But, according to FINDING 18, “There was no evidence of any systematic review of contracts in excess of $25,000 by legal counsel as to form or content." Certainly with all the contracting with outside legal counsel authorized by then-City Administrator Jason Stilwell, Mr. Stilwell certainly should have contracted with legal counsel to review contracts “as to form or content.” And Mr. Stilwell was certainly in a position to make certain that the City Treasurer was not “isolated from any meaningful role in the contract/invoice disbursements and tracking system.” Yet, FINDINGS 17 states “The City Treasurer was isolated from any meaningful role in the contract/invoice disbursements and tracking system.”
Additionally, with respect to the City Security System Audit Report (2013), a report estimated to be 150 pages identifying “800 security vulnerabilities,” that the MCCGJ made RECOMMENDATION 3 “The City immediately procure or upgrade to an appropriate IT System and secure the data network” is evidence that then-City Administrator Jason Stilwell failed to remedy IT issues which arguably should have been remedied early during his three-year tenure.
As for other possible “wrongdoing” by then-City Administrator Jason Stilwell and then-Administrative Services Director Susan Paul, the MCCGJ Report’s failure to address their actions and conduct regarding the two separate investigations of IT Misconduct; one investigation into Plaintiffs possible criminal activity ("Criminal Investigation"), and the second investigation into the IT Misconduct and related job performance of Plaintiff in his capacity as an employee of the City ("Administrative Investigation"), and the decision to not forward the “Criminal Investigation” findings to the Monterey County District Attorney’s Office given Search Warrant No. 7682 checked statements of “Property or things used as a means of committing a felony” and “Property or things that are evidence that tends to show a felony has been committed, or tends to show that a particular person has committed a felony,” is significant due to the nature of the Criminal Investigation and to its noticeable absence from the MCCGJ Report. Subsequent to the MCCGJ Report, on June 17, 2015, the City settled the McInchak’s matter for $275,000.
In short, given the aforementioned improper conduct, misconduct and misdoing, including acts of omission and commission, directly attributable to then-City Administrator Jason Stilwell and then-Administrative Services Director Susan Paul as stated in the MCCGJ Report on Carmel Governance, it is evident to any reasonable individual that the MCCGJ Report should have recognized these acts as acts of a kind of “wrongdoing.” Instead the MCCGJ made FINDING 10 and FINDING 11, as follows:
F10. Mr. Stilwell was a well-qualified City Administrator who recognized and diligently addressed widespread City management problems and tried to implement shifting City Council priorities, maintaining a professional attitude in spite of external pressure and criticism. He may have avoided much of the upheaval surrounding his administration by having a clearer perception of the nature of small-town government and exercising a more thoughtful and measured approach to change.
F11. Ms. Paul was an experienced Administrative Services Director who quickly recognized areas of mismanagement and risk for the City and implemented solutions within what she understood to be her areas of authority with due diligence and proper municipal procedure. Her decisive by-the-book actions and abrupt manner caused resentment among longtime employees and City residents, which may have been avoided with more sensitivity on her part to the City’s culture.
Written & Published by L. A. Paterson
NOTE: Jason Stillwell was hired as deputy city manager for Santa Maria; Stilwell started Monday, June 15, 2015.
Source: ‘Well-Respected Administrator’ Named Deputy City Manager for Santa Maria By Janene Scully, Noozhawk North County Editor | @JaneneScully | Published on 06.18.2015 9:14 p.m.
Source: ‘Well-Respected Administrator’ Named Deputy City Manager for Santa Maria By Janene Scully, Noozhawk North County Editor | @JaneneScully | Published on 06.18.2015 9:14 p.m.
Sunday, June 21, 2015
PUBLIC WORKSHOPS: GreenWaste Recovery & Paid Parking Pilot Program
PUBLIC
WORKSHOPS
WHAT: GreenWaste Recovery, Carmel-by-the-Sea’s new hauler for garbage, recyclable materials and yard trimmings, effective July 1, 2015
WHERE: Carpenter Hall, Sunset Center
W/S Mission St. between 8th Av. & 10th Av.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.
WHEN: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 @ 4:30 P.M.
WHERE: Carmel Woman’s Club
San Carlos St. & 9th Av., S.W. Corner
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.
Friday, June 19, 2015
2014-2015 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report: CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA A GOVERNANCE REVIEW
ABSTRACT: The 2014-2015 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report “CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA A GOVERNANCE REVIEW” document copy is embedded. Importantly, “CONCLUSION The 2014/2015 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury was asked by the Mayor of Carmel to review the City’s policies and internal controls and to make recommendations. In addition, a formal Citizens’ Complaint was filed requesting that the MCCGJ examine City governance and failed oversight. This Report is as comprehensive as possible, given the constraints of time and resources, and the systematic lack of cooperation by the City. However it could not purport to address all the complaints, issues and problems of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s management and governance.”
"...the City engaged in a “request and deny” strategy, which served only to cause many weeks of delay. The investigation was further hampered by instructions from the City Attorney and private legal counsel advising some interviewees not to answer MCCGJ questions relating to personnel matters of which they had direct, personal knowledge."
Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
"...the City engaged in a “request and deny” strategy, which served only to cause many weeks of delay. The investigation was further hampered by instructions from the City Attorney and private legal counsel advising some interviewees not to answer MCCGJ questions relating to personnel matters of which they had direct, personal knowledge."
Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
Because of the considerable use by the City of outside legal counsel between 2012 and 2014 for employee terminations, Public Records Act (PRA) request reviews, HR matters, contract matters, and general legal services at a cost to the City of more than $475,000, the MCCGJ wanted to know more about the involvement of the City Attorney in such services and whether he has a regular procedural role in a defined list of City matters or is “on call” when needed. The MCCGJ also wished to speak with the outside attorneys who acted for the City in the areas noted above, to gain clarity about the appropriate use of separately retained counsel and to help determine if charges of cronyism were founded. For these, and only these, purposes the MCCGJ requested a waiver of attorney-client privilege.
In response to this request, the City staff used outside counsel to inform the MCCGJ that it would not waive attorney-client privilege, preventing the Grand Jury from examining this critically important area.
Waiver of City Council Closed Session Privilege
To further its investigation and gain insight into City Council processes regarding establishment of key initiatives and priorities, approval of contracts, supervision of the City Administrator, (and City Attorney, Treasurer and Engineer), public records request positions, and knowledge of major personnel actions taken, the MCCGJ requested waiver of the City Council’s closed session privilege for these, and only these, purposes for the period 2012-2014.
In response to this request, the Mayor and Council voted on Feb. 10, 2015 to table the request until outside counsel could be consulted. The waiver was subsequently not granted.
In response to this request, the City staff used outside counsel to inform the MCCGJ that it would not waive attorney-client privilege, preventing the Grand Jury from examining this critically important area.
Waiver of City Council Closed Session Privilege
To further its investigation and gain insight into City Council processes regarding establishment of key initiatives and priorities, approval of contracts, supervision of the City Administrator, (and City Attorney, Treasurer and Engineer), public records request positions, and knowledge of major personnel actions taken, the MCCGJ requested waiver of the City Council’s closed session privilege for these, and only these, purposes for the period 2012-2014.
In response to this request, the Mayor and Council voted on Feb. 10, 2015 to table the request until outside counsel could be consulted. The waiver was subsequently not granted.
And the "Investigative Report on City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Contracts,"dated May 5, 2015, was footnoted, as follows: 1 The MCCGJ is not able to accept this report because of its limited and selective scope, its failure to recognize the City’s historic and systemic contract process problems, the conspicuous lack of an interview with the City Administrator who was in office, and the absence of an audit prepared according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, as would have been provided by the use of a Certified Public Accountant.
FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS and RESPONSES REQUIRED sections are reproduced.
FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS and RESPONSES REQUIRED sections are reproduced.
Findings F1 through F6 apply to the time period prior to the hiring of Mr. Jason Stilwell in late 2011.
F1. In the time period note above, City operations were undisciplined, as City policies were outdated, nonexistent or ignored. With several empty Department director positions, employees worked hard to keep up and paid little attention to standard municipal procedures.
F2. In the time period noted above, there were serious flaws and vulnerabilities in network system security, placing the City at risk financially and legally.
F3. In the time period noted above, contracts were mismanaged with regard to public bidding, purchase order processing, and services provided with expired contracts.
F4.In the time period noted above, the City Council was not provided with contract payment schedules or accumulated payment tracking reports.
F5. In the time period noted above, the Human Resources process was mismanaged with regard to pay grades, progressive discipline, and proper staff training, and was lacking in leadership.
F6. In the time period noted above, the Public Records Act request process was unstructured, noncompliant, and ad hoc.
F7. The Mayor and City Council did not fully execute their responsibilities of inquiry and oversight.
F8. Neither the Mayor nor the City Council members received any formal training or substantive orientation on the responsibilities of their positions.
F9. The Mayor and the City Council members were more responsive to political pressure than to the need for effective governance.
F10. Mr. Stilwell was a well-qualified City Administrator who recognized and diligently addressed widespread City management problems and tried to implement shifting City Council priorities, maintaining a professional attitude in spite of external pressure and criticism. He may have avoided much of the upheaval surrounding his administration by having a clearer perception of the nature of small-town government and exercising a more thoughtful and measured approach to change.
F11. Ms. Paul was an experienced Administrative Services Director who quickly recognized areas of mismanagement and risk for the City and implemented solutions within what she understood to be her areas of authority with due diligence and proper municipal procedure. Her decisive by-the-book actions and abrupt manner caused resentment among longtime employees and City residents, which may have been avoided with more sensitivity on her part to the City’s culture.
F12. There was no credible evidence to support allegations of contract splitting, cronyism or any other wrongdoing under Mr. Stilwell or Ms. Paul.
F13. The General Law/Weak Mayor structure was often misunderstood by Carmel citizens and the City Council.
F14. The local media provided easy access for City employees to vent their side of a story when the City’s hands were tied by employee privacy restraints.
F15. The governance and administration of the City is unduly influenced by the reportorial and editorial practices of The Carmel Pine Cone.
F16.
T
F17. The City Treasurer was isolated from any meaningful role in the contract/invoice disbursements and tracking system.
F18. There was no evidence of any systematic review of contracts in excess of $25,000 by legal counsel as to form or content.
F19. A significant amount of money is spent on outside counsel as it supplements the City Attorney position in numerous matters including but not limited to labor and employment concerns, public records requests, general business and facilities, joint powers agreements, municipal law, and miscellaneous lawsuits.
F20. Historical averages of amounts spent on outside legal services over the past five years would support a full-time City Attorney and staff where such attorney would have experience in contracts, employment matters, and Public Records Act requests, as well as municipal law.
F21. The City Council seriously failed to exercise its power of inquiry in its decision-making process regarding rehires, by excluding the City’s outside defense counsel from the process and by negotiating hasty settlements of claims in the early or pre-litigation stages, which precluded any meaningful scrutiny of these employment issues.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. The City require all elected officials to undergo The League of California Cities “New Mayors & Council Members Academy” formal training, for each new term of office.
R2.
The Mayor and City Council conduct a structured review of the City’s departments each month, to ensure proper oversight of City operations and more aggressive use of their power of inquiry.
R3. The City immediately procure or upgrade to an appropriate IT System and secure the data network.
R4. The City immediately hire an experienced Human Resources Director and fill all open positions as quickly as possible.
R5. The City define and utilize a formal, mandatory progressive discipline system to be consistently applied for all employee disciplinary matters.
R6. The City require that all employees undergo formal training, with specific focus on job responsibilities, City policy, and Municipal Code guidance for their specific positions.
R7. The City immediately procure and implement appropriate, full-function financial management software.
R8. The City review the contract awarding process to ensure that the Carmel Municipal Code provisions are being followed at departmental levels, and that where called for, public bidding is used.
R9. The City review (or rewrite if necessary) the purchasing process, to ensure that the Carmel Municipal Code provisions are current, complete, and are being followed.
R10. The City adopt a procedure whereby all major contracts are reviewed and signed off by the City Attorney and City Treasurer.
R11. The City report periodic payments under contracts to the City Council, in a manner which reflects the total contract amount and total payments to date, as well as the current monthly payment.
R12. The City establish a content list for City contract files and assure that such files contain (as applicable): bidding process compliance (RFP); vendor proposal and all attachments; legal review; staff summary report to the City Council; City Council resolution; and where there are contract amendments, all of the foregoing as appropriate.
R13. The City enhance the role of the City Treasurer such that the position has responsibility in the day-to-day financial management, including tracking the status of all contracts, identifying payment overages, and reporting to the City Council.
R14. The City make the City Attorney position a full-time City employee requiring meaningful experience in the areas of contracts, employment law, and Public Records Act requests, as well as municipal law.
R15. The City Attorney manage the selection, and oversee the engagement of outside legal counsel, including the review and approval of their billings.
•
June 19, 2015
(26 pages)
2014-2015 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report: SALINAS CITY COUNCIL MEMBER JOSÉ CASTAÑEDA
ABSTRACT: The 2014-2015 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report “SALINAS CITY COUNCIL MEMBER JOSÉ CASTAÑEDA” document copy is embedded. FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS and RESPONSES REQUIRED sections are reproduced.
RESPONSES REQUIRED
Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the MCCGJ requests responses to all Findings and Recommendations R2 and R3 from the following governing body:
The MCCGJ invites José Castañeda to respond to all Findings and Recommendation R1.
June 19, 2015
FINDINGS
F1.
José Castañeda is currently serving a four-year term, until the
end of 2016, as one of the seven
elected members of the Salinas City Council. He was elected to the Council in
November 2012
to represent District 1.
F2.
At the time of his election to the City Council, José Castañeda
was President and a long-term member
of the Alisal Union School District Board of Trustees (“Alisal Board”).
F3.
The law is clear that a person who is serving in a city as both
a member of a school board and member of the city’s council is holding incompatible offices and must resign
the first office
that he was elected to.
F4.
Mr. Castañeda refused to resign from his position with the
Alisal Board, forcing the City of Salinas
to hire outside counsel to bring a court action (“the incompatible office case”)
seeking an order to remove him from the Alisal Board.
F5.
On September 20, 2013 a Judgment was entered in the incompatible
office case removing Mr. Castañeda from his position with the Alisal Board and
ordering him to pay a fine to the State of California in the sum of $5,000.
F6.
The incompatible office case cost the City of Salinas the sum of
$26,555 in legal fees.
F7.
Mr. Castañeda has failed and refused to pay the $5,000 fine.
F8.
Subsequent to the Judgment in the Action, the City began
collection efforts, including a demand
that Mr. Castañeda pay the $5,000 fine, but it gave up efforts when it was
learned that he had no attachable assets and he had other civil
judgments against him.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1.
José Castañeda immediately pay the $5,000 fine that is
outstanding in the incompatible office case.
R2.
The City of Salinas pursue the appropriate post-judgment
proceedings in the incompatible office
case to enforce payment of the $5,000 fine from José Castañeda to the State.
R3. The City explore amending the City’s Charter to provide for the removal of a City Council Member upon conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude or the failure to pay a fine imposed by a court.
•
June 19, 2015
(9 pages)
2014-2015 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report: FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES—A STRESSFUL WORK ENVIRONMENT
ABSTRACT: The 2014-2015 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report “FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES—A STRESSFUL WORK ENVIRONMENT” document copy is embedded. FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS and RESPONSES REQUIRED sections are reproduced.
F1.
The FCS Branch may place staff social workers in new positions
without sufficient and necessary
orientation and training.
F2.
The FCS Branch may place supervisors in assignments without
sufficient orientation or training.
F3.
Conditions and priorities in the work environment make it
difficult for staff to attend training sessions
if the training is on site.
F4.
There are some supervisors who communicate to subordinates in an
unacceptable, demeaning manner.
F5.
Some supervisors use the removal of the 9-80 schedule as
punishment for work issues that could
be handled in a less threatening manner, and in a way that wouldn’t compromise
office function.
F6.
FCS Branch talks about team building but does not uniformly
implement it in a pragmatic manner.
F7.
There appears to be a lack of knowledge and application of
emotional intelligence in the FCS
Branch.
F8.
Social workers within FCS are passionate about their work but
don’t feel supported or appreciated by some supervisors and management.
F9.
Emergency calls often interfere with lunch breaks; often these
breaks are not taken because of the amount of work required of each employee.
F10.
FCS Branch and the Monterey County DSS offices are difficult for
the public to locate due to
lack of both exterior and interior signage.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1.
The FCS Branch implement a “Zero Tolerance Policy” for anger in
the interactions between all
staff.
R2.
The FCS Branch provide training for emotional intelligence, work
stress, and communication skills for all staff.
R3.
The FCS Branch enforce the policy of requiring supervisors to
meet with employees one-on-one
on a monthly basis.
R4.
The FCS Branch provide time for employees to devote to training
without interruption.
R5.
The FCS Branch assign supervisors to units only after those
supervisors have had experience and
training in those units.
R6.
The FCS Branch assign supervisors and staff to jobs that reflect
individual abilities and provide
training and sufficient orientation to develop and support those abilities.
R7.
The monthly supervisory meetings be used, and documented, to
resolve all individual matters such as personal leave, workload efficiency, and
general progress. There should be no surprises
at evaluation time.
R8.
Staff meetings, both for individual units, programs, and all
staff be held regularly. Program managers
should attend these. The agency director should also attend “all staff”
meetings, and
solicit input from line staff so that they maintain an awareness of the morale
of the office.
R9.
FCS Branch require transparency in procedures and case
assignments.
R10.
The FCS Branch management be observant regarding whether
employees have had a half-hour respite at appropriate times.
R11.
The building at 1000 South Main Street in Salinas be provided
with signage to clearly inform the public that it is the location of the
Monterey County Department of Social Services and
the FCS Branch.
R12. The building be provided with interior signage to help guide the public to the appropriate offices.
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the MCCGJ requests responses to all Findings and Recommendations as follows:
•
June 19, 2015
(9 pages)
Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 E-MAIL RULING REVISING SCHEDULE FOR COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the E-MAIL RULING REVISING SCHEDULE FOR COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT document copy is embedded. IT IS RULED that comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report are due July 1, 2015.
E-MAIL RULING REVISING SCHEDULE FOR COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Minutes, March 6, May 22 & June 16, 2015: GERlT SAND; COBBLESTONE BAKERY, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA; DOES 1 THROUGH 20 Defendant (Case No. M130393) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY
ABSTRACT: RE: GERlT SAND; COBBLESTONE BAKERY, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA; DOES 1 THROUGH 20 Defendant. Case No. M130393 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY. HIGHLIGHTS OF MINUTES, March 6, May 22 and June 16, 2015 are featured. Mandatory Settlement Conference and Trial Setting are set for November 20, 2015 at 1:30 P.M., Department 14.
HIGHLIGHTS OF MINUTES
Case Progress Conference, June 16, 2015
Demurrer, May 22, 2015
Demurrer, March 6, 2015
Date: June 16, 2015
Hon. Lydia M. Villarreal
Appearances: Tracy Tomlin, on behalf of Terry Stark, Counsel for Plaintiff
Rachel Ostrander, Attorney on behalf of Defendant
The Defendant requests a jury trial.
Mandatory Settlement Conference and Trail Setting is set for November 20, 2015 at 1:30 P.M., Department 14.
Minutes: Demurrer
Date: May 22, 2015
Hon. Susan J. Matcham
Appearances: Terry Stark, Counsel for Plaintiff
Rachel Ostrander, attorney on behalf of Defendant
Case called for hearing on Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
The court overrules the Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
Minutes: Demurrer
Date: March 6, 2015
Hon. Susan J. Matcham
Appearances: Terry Stark, Counsel for Plaintiff
Rachel Ostrander, attorney on behalf of Defendant
Case is regularly called for Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
First Cause of Action is sustained with leave to amend within 20 days.
Second Cause of Action is sustained without leave to amend.
Third Cause of Action is sustained without leave to amend.
McInchak Settlement: $275,000.00
ABSTRACT: RE: Mclnchak, Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al, Defendant/Respondent (Case No. M128062). The Minutes for Trial Setting on June 17, 2015, Courtroom 14, Hon Thomas W. Wills presiding, state, in part, “The settlement is recited for the record: Plaintiff's counsel to submit the finalized settlement allocation to the Worker's Compensation Judge for approval. $275,000.00 is to be paid to Plaintiff's attorney's trust account or as designated by the Plaintiff within 30 days of delivery to Mr Hurley of the signed order by the Worker's Compensation Appeals Board." The Minutes document copy is embedded.
Mclnchak, Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al, Defendant/Respondent (Case No. M128062).
Minutes, Trial Setting, June 17, 2015,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREYMclnchak, Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al, Defendant/Respondent (Case No. M128062).
Minutes, Trial Setting, June 17, 2015,
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
WASTE MANAGEMENT vs. GREENWASTE RECOVERY RATES COMPARISION for Residential Rates for Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Yard Trimmings
ABSTRACT: With the transition from Waste Management (WM) to GreenWaste Recovery (GWR) on July 1, 2015, TABLE I: COMPARISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT vs. GREENWASTE RECOVERY RATES for Residential Rates for Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Yard Trimmings, including percentage residential rate increases from Waste Management to GreenWaste Recovery, is presented. The FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AND GREENWASTE RECOVERY, INC. FOR SOLID WASTE, RECYCLING, AND ORGANICS COLLECTION SERVICES, JUNE 19, 2014 document copy is embedded, with HIGHLIGHTS featured.
NOTE: With regard to Recyclable Materials, Customers can request one (1) blue 32-gallon cart for recyclable materials with delivery expected during the first week in August 2015; call Toll Free (877) 203-8970.
TABLE I: COMPARISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT (WM) VS. GREENWASTE RECOVERY (GWR) RATES
(% INCREASES FROM WASTE MANAGEMENT TO GREENWASTE RECOVERY)
Residential Rates (Includes Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Yard Trimmings)
FRANCHISE AGREEMENTBETWEEN CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AND GREENWASTE RECOVERY, INC. FOR SOLID WASTE, RECYCLING, AND ORGANICS COLLECTION SERVICES
JUNE 19, 2014
HIGHLIGHTS: FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AND GREENWASTE RECOVERY, INC. FOR SOLID WASTE, RECYCLING, AND ORGANICS COLLECTION SERVICES, JUNE 19, 2014
The Term of this Agreement shall commence July 1, 2015 (Commencement Date) and continue in full force for a period of fifteen (15) years, through and including June 30, 2030, unless the Agreement is extended in accordance with this Section or terminated in pursuant to Section 10.2.
At Agency's sole discretion, this Agreement may be extended without amendment for a period of no less than one (1) and no more than five (5) additional years for a total Term that does not exceed twenty (20) years. If Agency desires to extend the Agreement, Agency shall provide the Contractor with written notice of its decision to extend the Agreement at least one (1) year before the expiration of the Term. Such notice by Agency shall specify the duration of the extension.
Between the Effective Date and Commencement Date, Contractor shall perform all activities necessary to prepare itself to start providing services required by this Agreement on the Commencement Date.
EXHIBIT B1:
DIRECT SERVICES
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SERVICES (pages 61-67)
The Superintendent will also have direct access to an Operations Supervisor to arrange for the prompt Collection and removal of larger debris that may either be difficult to handle as an individual or are too large or heavy for Collection in regular Containers.
EXHIBIT C:
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH REQUIREMENTS (pages 99–113)
EXHIBIT G3:
CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSAL
INITIAL RATES FOR COLLECTION SERVICES (pages 306-311)
NOTE: With regard to Recyclable Materials, Customers can request one (1) blue 32-gallon cart for recyclable materials with delivery expected during the first week in August 2015; call Toll Free (877) 203-8970.
(% INCREASES FROM WASTE MANAGEMENT TO GREENWASTE RECOVERY)
Residential Rates (Includes Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Yard Trimmings)
WM GWR
GARBAGE
VOLUME
|
RATES
($/MONTH)
|
RATES
($/MONTH)
|
% CHANGE (+) |
20-Gallons
|
$21.41
|
$26.60
|
+24.2%
|
35/32-Gallons
|
$25.45
|
$29.56
|
+16.1%
|
64/65-Gallons
|
$40.23
|
$46.73
|
+16.2%
|
96/95-Gallons
|
$51.00
|
$59.24
|
+16.2%
|
NOTE:
For both Waste Management and GreenWaste Recovery, the rate is based on the
garbage volume cart, not on recyclable materials and yard trimmings cart
volumes.
JUNE 19, 2014
ARTICLE 2.
TERM OF
AGREEMENT
TERM AND OPTION
TO EXTEND
The Term of this Agreement shall commence July 1, 2015 (Commencement Date) and continue in full force for a period of fifteen (15) years, through and including June 30, 2030, unless the Agreement is extended in accordance with this Section or terminated in pursuant to Section 10.2.
At Agency's sole discretion, this Agreement may be extended without amendment for a period of no less than one (1) and no more than five (5) additional years for a total Term that does not exceed twenty (20) years. If Agency desires to extend the Agreement, Agency shall provide the Contractor with written notice of its decision to extend the Agreement at least one (1) year before the expiration of the Term. Such notice by Agency shall specify the duration of the extension.
Between the Effective Date and Commencement Date, Contractor shall perform all activities necessary to prepare itself to start providing services required by this Agreement on the Commencement Date.
EXHIBIT B1:
DIRECT SERVICES
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SERVICES (pages 61-67)
EXHIBIT B5
AGENCY SERVICES (pages 87-88)
3. Carmel Beach
and Village Cleanup Program
Contractor will employ one (1) Carmel Beach and Village Superintendent (Superintendent) position dedicated to cleaning and maintaining Carmel Beach and Village eight (8) hours a day, five (5) days a week. The scheduling of this position is intended to be flexible during the Term of this Agreement initially including Friday through Sunday with the scheduling of the remaining two days to be determined by the Agency's Contract Manager no later than one-month prior to the service Commencement Date. Scheduling for this position may be subject to a one-time seasonal adjustment annually at Agency's request; however, Contractor shall not be required to make a seasonal scheduling change without 30-days prior notice. Contractor may limit Agency's scheduling request if such request would violate labor laws or the terms of the Contractor's Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Superintendent position will be responsible for the following activities:
•
•
•
• Visually evaluating Container contents to determine locations that suffer from issues of chronic contamination in order to more closely monitor those areas and/or assess the need for additional or modified signage, and;
•
EXHIBIT C:
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH REQUIREMENTS (pages 99–113)
EXHIBIT G3:
CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSAL
INITIAL RATES FOR COLLECTION SERVICES (pages 306-311)
Saturday, June 13, 2015
2014/2015 MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY (MCCGJ) REPORTS
ABSTRACT: “The Civil Grand Jury investigates and provides reports on the operations of local government in Monterey County, including the County, Cities and the numerous Special Districts that exist to serve the residents of the County. The Civil Grand Jury undertakes investigations on its own initiative, but also encourages residents to submit written complaints that it may investigate,” according to the Monterey County Civil Grand Jury (MCCGJ) website. The 2014-2015 MCCGJ Jurors, by name, and the communities which they reside, are listed. The 2014-2015 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Reports published on the County of Monterey website are listed and each Report is featured in successive posts with FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS and RESPONSES REQUIRED sections reproduced.
The
Jurors for the 2014-15 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury (MCCGJ), and the
communities within which they reside, are:
Brandon
Hill, Foreperson (Salinas)
Patrick Healy (Carmel by the Sea)
Louis Panetta, Foreperson Pro Tem (Monterey)
Peter Hiller (Carmel)
Robert Barry (Prunedale)
Barbara Mejia (Salinas)
Michael Berube (Carmel Valley)
Vicki Nohrden (Carmel)
Timothy Blomgren (Carmel)
Roger Powers (Salinas)
Gary Breschini (Salinas)
Judee Timm (Carmel)
Francis M. Small, Jr. (Carmel)
Jeane Errea (San Ardo)
Alis Gumbiner (Monterey)
Kathleen Wall (Monterey)
Sol Gonsalvo (Salinas)
Olivia Yates (Pebble Beach)
William Harris (Carmel)
Patrick Healy (Carmel by the Sea)
Louis Panetta, Foreperson Pro Tem (Monterey)
Peter Hiller (Carmel)
Robert Barry (Prunedale)
Barbara Mejia (Salinas)
Michael Berube (Carmel Valley)
Vicki Nohrden (Carmel)
Timothy Blomgren (Carmel)
Roger Powers (Salinas)
Gary Breschini (Salinas)
Judee Timm (Carmel)
Francis M. Small, Jr. (Carmel)
Jeane Errea (San Ardo)
Alis Gumbiner (Monterey)
Kathleen Wall (Monterey)
Sol Gonsalvo (Salinas)
Olivia Yates (Pebble Beach)
William Harris (Carmel)
2014-2015 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Reports
- Over Militarization of Local Police Departments: Myth or
Fact? (10 pages)
- “Fly Monterey” The Monterey Regional Airport (11 pages)
- Inquiry into Moss Landing Infrastructure Fund (6 pages)
- A Glass Half Full? The Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District and the Marina Coast Water District (16 pages)
- Housing Authority of Monterey County Preserving Resources
for Qualified Residents (9
pages)
- Education A “No Excuses” Approach to English Language
Learning in Monterey County (20 pages)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)