Carmel Art Association Presents OPEN ONLINE

Carmel Art Association

“Carmel’s Oldest Gallery”

“Local Professional Art Since 1927”

Mission Statement: 
The Association exists to provide its members with a permanent art gallery, to advance knowledge of, and interest in the arts, and to create a spirit of cooperation and fellowship among artists and the community. 

A Proud Heritage: 

The legendary Carmel Art Association was formed on August 8, 1927 by a small group of artists who gathered at “Gray Gables,” the modest home/studio of Josephine Culbertson and Ida Johnson at the corner of Seventh and Lincoln in Carmel-by-the-Sea. These nineteen “pioneers”—who grew up in the 19th century and individually found their respective paths to Carmel from all corners of the world—each desired a greater sense of community, a spirit of collaboration, and a place to show their work. Before the meeting concluded, they had established an association with a mission “to advance art and cooperation among artists, secure a permanent exhibition space, and promote greater fellowship between artists and the public.” 

W/s Dolores St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Daily
Open to the Public at No Charge

For more information, Online or (831) 624-6176.

OPEN ONLINE

DATES: MARCH 16, 2020 

The CAA is Open Online Although the Doors are Closed

For the safety of our staff and visitors, the Carmel Art Association is temporarily going online as of March 16, 2020. Though our doors in Carmel-By-The-Sea are closed our staff is ready to assist you by phone or email. We invite you to browse artwork by our Artist Members on our website. We are here remotely to answer questions and assist you with purchases. Please don’t hesitate to contact our friendly staff.

Phone: 831-624-6176

Contact our staff by Email:

Sally Aberg – Sales Manager
Kim Cambell – Sales Associate
Suzanne Limbird – Sales Associate
Nicki Ehrlich – General Manager
Carmen DeVida – Media Specialist

ADDENDUM:

Carmel Art Association on facebook

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING, March 30, 2020

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING

Monday, March 30, 2020

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL

Staff Report

March 30, 2020

ORDERS OF BUSINESS

Resolution ratifying the Director of Emergency Services Order No. 20-1 staying evictions in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

City Government’s Lack of a Meaningful Public Servant/Service Ethic

In a response to a public records act request, Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk, stated, as follows:

“Due to the Shelter in Place order, City offices are closed. Services not considered essential for the protection of public health and safety, such as responding to public records requests within the statutory time frames, are impacted. A response to your public records request will be provided as soon as possible upon the City's return to providing nonessential services. “

No better evidence exists for our City government’s lack of a meaningful public servant/service ethic.

Importantly, the First Amendment Coalition articulated in a Statement entitled “Coalition Urges Compliance With California Public Records Law Amid COVID-19 Crisis,” dated March 23, 2020, “In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, some government agencies in California have announced that they intend to stop responding to California Public Records Act requests until the crisis passes. There is no legal basis for this extraordinary step. The California Public Records Act, Gov. Code § 6250, et seq., remains the law of the land, and Article I, section 3(b)(1) of the California Constitution provides that “The people have a right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.”

The public’s right of access remains and is crucial in times of crisis. Just as the government’s power is at its apex during a crisis, the importance of the public’s right to know how their government is wielding that power could not be greater.

We recognize and understand the difficult choices that government agencies must make right now. Delayed responses to Public Records Act requests may be inevitable. But agencies have an obligation to take all reasonable measures to preserve and effectuate the rights of Californians to understand their government — rights which our Legislature has recognized are “fundamental” and “necessary” and our Supreme Court has held are “essential to the functioning of a democracy.” (See Gov. Code § 6250 [access to information is "a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state"]; Int’l Fed’n of Prof’l & Tech. Eng’rs, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319, 328 [“Openness in government is essential to the functioning of a democracy.”].)

The coronavirus pandemic is not California’s first major crisis, and the Legislature has never authorized the suspension of the California Public Records Act. It enacted that law specifically “to safeguard the accountability of government to the public, for secrecy is antithetical to a democratic system of government of the people, by the people and for the people.” (See San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 762, 771-72.) Moreover, the Governor’s recent emergency orders do not waive any of the California Public Records Act’s requirements.

While we acknowledge the extraordinary stresses that government agencies face right now, we urge all government agencies to comply with the California Public Records Act and the California Constitution and take all reasonable measures to continue to provide information to the public and the press during these exceptionally difficult times.

In declaring an “emergency in response to the COVID-19 crisis” and determining “that responding to public records requests within the statutory time frames are not essential services,” the City has not provided legal justification. To reiterate, with this action, the City has provided no better evidence for its lack of a meaningful public servant/service ethic.


REFERENCES:
FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION
Defending Free Speech & The Public’s Right To Know

Coalition Urges Compliance With California Public Records Law Amid COVID-19 Crisis
March 23, 2020

FAC Joins Nationwide Coalition Urging Transparency And Access In Response To COVID-19
March 20, 2020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REGION 32, SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER and ANDREW HURCHALLA, an Individual (CASE NO. 32-CA-242555): GENERAL COUNSEL’S BRIEF TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE & CLOSING BRIEF OF RESPONDENT SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER

ABSTRACT: RE: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REGION 32, SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER and ANDREW HURCHALLA, an Individual (CASE NO. 32-CA-242555), the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER Case page is reproduced; the document copies of GENERAL COUNSEL’S BRIEF TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE by Lelia M. Gomez, Esq., Counsel for the General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Region 32, dated March 20, 2020 and the CLOSING BRIEF OF RESPONDENT SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER by Rona P. Layton, Layton Law Firm, submitted on March 19, 2020, are embedded. The CONCLUSION of the GENERAL COUNSEL’S BRIEF TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE states: Based on the forgoing, Counsel for the General Counsel respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge issue a recommended order requiring Respondent to fully remedy the above-described violation, rescind its permanent “do not dispatch” status against Hurchalla, cease and desist from further unlawful conduct, post the proposed Notice to Employees at Respondent’s facility, and order such other relief as may be necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies and purpose of the Act. And the CONCLUSION of the CLOSING BRIEF OF RESPONDENT SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER states: For all of those reasons, Respondent Goodwill Central Coast requests that the complaint in this case be dismissed.

 

SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER

Case Number: 32-CA-242555

Location: Carmel, CA

Date Filed: 06/03/2019

Region Assigned: Region 32, Oakland, California

Status: Open

Docket Activity

Date	Document	Issued/Filed By
03/20/2020	Post-Hearing Brief to ALJ	Counsel for GC / Region
03/19/2020	Post-Hearing Brief to ALJ	Employer
01/30/2020	Administrative Law Judges Order	NLRB - ALJ
12/23/2019	Administrative Law Judges Order	NLRB - ALJ
10/29/2019	RD Order to Reschedule Hearing*	NLRB - GC
10/24/2019	RD Order to Reschedule Hearing*	NLRB - GC
09/15/2019	Answer to Complaint*	Charged Party / Respondent
09/03/2019	Complaint and Notice of Hearing*	NLRB - GC
09/03/2019	Notice of Hearing in ULP Case*	NLRB - GC
06/03/2019	Initial Letter to Charged Party*	NLRB - GC
06/03/2019	Initial Letter to Charging Party*	NLRB - GC

The Docket Activity list does not reflect all actions in this case.

* This document may require redactions before it can be viewed. To obtain a copy, please file a request through our FOIA Branch.

Allegations

·     8(a)(3) Discharge (Including Layoff and Refusal to Hire (not salting))

Participants

Participant	Address	Phone
Charged Party / Respondent Legal Representative RONA LAYTON LAYTON LAW FIRM	111 N Market St Ste 300 San Jose, CA 95113-1116	(408)892-9870
Charged Party / Respondent Employer SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER	P.O. Box 1950 Carmel By The Sea, CA 93921	(831)620-2040
Charging Party Individual

SOURCE: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

REFERENCE:

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Basic Guide to the National Labor Relations Act

General Principles of Law Under the Statute and Procedures of the National Labor Relations Board

Unfair Labor Practices of Employers

Section 8(a)(3)—Discrimination Against Employees. Section 8(a)(3) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate against employees “in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment” for the purpose of encouraging or discouraging membership in a labor organization. In general, the Act makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate in employment because of an employee’s union or other group, activity within the protection of the Act. A banding together of employees, even in the absence of a formal organization, may constitute a labor organization for purposes of Section 8(a)(3). It also prohibits discrimination because an employee has refrained from taking part in such union or group activity except where a valid union-security agreement is in effect. Discrimination within the meaning of the Act would include such action as refusing to hire, discharging, demoting, assigning to a less desirable shift or job, or withholding benefits.

The union security exception to Section 8(a)(3). As previously noted, Section 8(a)(3) provides that an employee may be discharged for failing to make certain lawfully required payments to the exclusive bargaining representative under a lawful union-security agreement. For a fuller discussion of this issue, see pages 2–3, above.

Even when there is a valid union-security agreement in effect, an employer may not pay the union the dues and fees owed by its employees. The employer may, however, deduct these amounts from the wages of its employees and forward them to the union for each employee who has voluntarily signed a dues “checkoff” authorization. Such checkoff authorization may be made irrevocable for no more than a year. But employees may revoke their checkoff authorizations after a Board-conducted election in which the union’s authority to maintain a union-security agreement has been withdrawn.

The Act does not limit employer’s right to discharge for economic reasons. This section does not limit an employer’s right to discharge, transfer, or layoff an employee for genuine economic reasons or for such good cause as disobedience or bad work. This right applies equally to employees who are active in support of a union and to those who are not.

In situations in which an employer disciplines an employee both because the employee has violated a work rule and because the employee has engaged in protected union activity, the discipline is unlawful unless the employer can show that the employee would have received the same discipline even if he or she had not engaged in the protected union activity.

An employer who is engaged in good-faith bargaining with a union may lock out the represented employees, sometimes even before impasse is reached in the negotiations, if it does so to further its position in bargaining. But a bargaining lockout may be unlawful if the employer is at that time unlawfully refusing to bargain or is bargaining in bad faith. It is also unlawful if the employer’s purpose in locking out its employees is to discourage them in their union loyalties and activities, that is, if the employer is motivated by hostility toward the union. Thus, a lockout to defeat a union’s efforts to organize the employer’s employees would violate the Act, as would the lockout of only those of its employees who are members of the union. On the other hand, lockouts are lawful that are intended to prevent any unusual losses or safety hazards that would be caused by an anticipated “quickie” strike. And a whipsaw strike against one employer engaged in multiemployer bargaining justifies a lockout by any of the other employers who are party to the bargaining.

Examples of violations of Section 8(a)(3). Examples of illegal discrimination under Section 8(a)(3) include:

• Discharging employees because they urged other employees to join a union.

• Refusing to reinstate employees when jobs they are qualified for are open because they took part in a union’s lawful strike.

• Granting of “superseniority” to those hired to replace employees engaged in a lawful strike.

• Demoting employees because they circulated a union petition among other employees asking the employer for an increase in pay.

• Discontinuing an operation at one plant and discharging the employees involved followed by opening the same operation at another plant with new employees because the employees at the first plant joined a union.

• Refusing to hire qualified applicants for jobs because they belong to a union. It would also be a violation if the qualified applicants were refused employment because they did not belong to a union, or because they belonged to one union rather than another.

GENERAL COUNSEL’S BRIEF TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

REGION 32

SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER and ANDREW HURCHALLA, an Individual

Case 32-CA-242555

Lelia M. Gomez, Esq.

Counsel for the General Counsel

National Labor Relations Board, Region 32

CLOSING BRIEF OF RESPONDENT SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

REGION 32

SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER and ANDREW HURCHALLA, an Individual

CASE NO. 32-CA-242555

Rona P. Layton

Layton Law Firm

United States Government

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Division of Judges

901 Market Street — Suite 485

San Francisco, CA 94103-1779

Phone (415) 356-5255 Fax 415.356.5254

December 20, 2019

 United States Government

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Division of Judges

901 Market Street — Suite 485

San Francisco, CA 94103-1779

Phone (415) 356-5255 Fax 415.356.5254

January 30, 2020

PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (PRA) LOG JANUARY 2020: PRA 2020-001 through PRA 2020-010

ABSTRACT:  For the month of January 2020, the City Clerk’s Office received ten (10) California Public Records Act requests, specifically, PRA 2020-001 through PRA 2020-010. Information for each PRA request, including REQUEST NUMBER, REQUEST DATE, STATUS, COMPLETED DATE, REQUESTOR, INFORMATION REQUESTED, NOTES and City Response document copies are embedded.

PRA LOG

JANUARY 2020

PRA 2020-001 through PRA 2020-010

REQUEST NUMBER 2020-001

REQUEST DATE 1/2/2020

STATUS

COMPLETED DATE 1/10/2020

REQUESTOR  Paterson

INFORMATION REQUESTED Electronic copies of Public Records Act requests and City’s responses to PRA requests CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PRA LOG NOVEMBER 2019 REQUEST NUMBERS PRA 2019-185 through PRA 2019-187.

Hello,

Please follow the link https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1yQXHYmiCJpa8PrkhghLkISJ4rKwTeuGo?usp=sharing to obtain the records on file in response to your request dated January 2, 2020, for the following:

Electronic copies of Public Records Act requests and City’s responses to PRA requests CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PRA LOG NOVEMBER  2019 REQUEST NUMBERS PRA 2019-185 through PRA 2019-187.

Thank you,

Britt Avrit, MMC

City Clerk

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

Your request for public records, including your email address, and the City’s response to your request are subject to disclosure as public records under the California Public Records Act.

PRA 2020-001 City Response

REQUEST NUMBER 2020-002

REQUEST DATE 1/9/2020

STATUS

COMPLETED DATE 1/9/2020

REQUESTOR Pivotal Campaigns

INFORMATION REQUESTED all 460's for the 2018 Mayor election of all eligible candidates, the relevant 700 forms for all eligible candidates for the 2018 Mayor election

PRA 2020-002 City Response

REQUEST NUMBER 2020-003

REQUEST DATE 1/9/2020

STATUS

COMPLETED DATE 1/16/2020

REQUESTOR Corin L. Kahn, Attorney

INFORMATION REQUESTED 1. All licenses and permits including use or conditional use permits, building permits, etc., and any citations such as orders to comply issued to Ishanshetal, LLC; 2. All licenses and permits including use or conditional use permits, building permits, etc., and any citations such as orders to comply issued to Mahendra Patel; 3. All licenses and permits including use or conditional use permits, building permits, etc., and any citations such as orders to comply issued to Bhagyalata Patel; 4. All licenses and permits including use or conditional use permits, building permits, etc., and any citations such as orders to comply issued to Shetal Yanez; 5. All licenses and permits including use or conditional use permits, building permits, etc., and any citations such as orders to comply issued to Julian Yanez; 6. All citations such as orders to comply issued to a business located at the corner of 4th Avenue and Mission Street; 7. All citations such as orders to comply issued to a business identified as the Wayfarer Inn or possibly known as the Carmel Wayfarer Inn or Hotel Carmel Wayfarer Inn;

PRA 2020-003 City Response

REQUEST NUMBER 2020-004

REQUEST DATE 1/17/2020

STATUS

COMPLETED DATE 1/24/2020

REQUESTOR Mark Zorne, Richards & Associates

INFORMATION REQUESTED any building permits for the last 90 days for Saroyan Custom Builders and Scott A Grougr Construction

PRA 2020-004 City Response

REQUEST NUMBER 2020-005

REQUEST DATE 1/21/2020

STATUS

COMPLETED DATE 1/29/2020

REQUESTOR Paterson

INFORMATION REQUESTED 1) Letter sent to the City from PG&E dated on or around January 6, 2020, regarding notice of contractors working for PG&E for the purpose of connecting utilities to a mixed-use project under construction on Lincoln Street between Fifth Avenue and Sixth Avenue on Monday, January 13, 2020.2) Original encroachment permit (March 2019) and permit extension (November 2019) issued from the City to PG&E regarding aforementioned work. 3) Correspondence, internal within the City, and between the City, including but not necessarily limited to Robert Harary, Public Works Director, and

PG&E, regarding encroachment permit, permit extension and content related to incident and preventing a similar incident in the future

Hello,

Please follow the link https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1S2z-f4rdKSIimBy-lLlXnVyfHvXAtevt?usp=sharing to obtain the records on file in response to your request dated January 19, 2020, for the following:

Electronic copies of:

1.    Letter sent to the City from PG&E dated on or around January 6, 2020, regarding notice of contractors working for PG&E for the purpose of connecting utilities to a mixed-use project under construction on Lincoln Street between Fifth Avenue and Sixth Avenue on Monday, January 13, 2020.

2.    Original encroachment permit (March 2019) and permit extension (November 2019) issued from the City to PG&E regarding aforementioned work.

3.    Correspondence, internal within the City, and between the City, including but not necessarily limited to Robert Harary, Public Works Director, and PG&E, regarding encroachment permit, permit extension and content related to incident and preventing a similar incident in the future.

Thank you,

Britt Avrit, MMC

City Clerk

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

Your request for public records, including your email address, and the City’s response to your request are subject to disclosure as public records under the California Public Records Act.

PRA 2020-005 City Response

REQUEST NUMBER 2020-006

REQUEST DATE 1/21/2020

STATUS

COMPLETED DATE 1/28/2020

REQUESTOR James Repko

INFORMATION REQUESTED published annual total remuneration (incl. salaries and any other payments) for all public positions held in Carmel-By-The-Sea

PRA 2020-006 City Response

REQUEST NUMBER 2020-007

REQUEST DATE 1/21/2020

STATUS

COMPLETED DATE 1/31/2020

REQUESTOR William & Barbara Hood

INFORMATION REQUESTED all/any documents enumerated in letter attached to the request/dated November 28, 2017

PRA 2020-007 City Response

REQUEST NUMBER 2020-008

REQUEST DATE 1/28/2020

STATUS

COMPLETED DATE 1/31/2020

REQUESTOR Daniel Watts

INFORMATION REQUESTED vendor contract/pricing between the City of Carmel and Host Compliance

PRA 2020-008 City Response

REQUEST NUMBER 2020-009

REQUEST DATE 1/30/2020

STATUS

COMPLETED DATE 1/31/2020

REQUESTOR Paterson

INFORMATION REQUESTED electronic copies of contracts with IT MANAGEMENT CORP. and NETFILE

Hello,

Attached please find the records on file in response to your request dated January 29, 2020, and received January 30, 2020, for the following:

Per City Administrator Contract Log FY 2019-20, electronic copies of contracts with IT MANAGEMENT CORP. and NETFILE  

Thank you, 

Britt Avrit, MMC

City Clerk

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

Your request for public records, including your email address, and the City’s response to your request are subject to disclosure as public records under the California Public Records Act.

PRA 2020-009 City Response

REQUEST NUMBER 2020-010

REQUEST DATE 1/30/2020

STATUS

COMPLETED DATE 2/3/2020

REQUESTOR Paterson

INFORMATION REQUESTED Public Records Act requests and City’s responses to PRA requests CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PRA LOG DECEMBER 2019 REQUEST

NUMBERS PRA 2019-189 through PRA 2019-199, excluding PRA 2019-196

Hello,

Please follow the link https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1k2_XXidFaZca6xjswDnqeIgx9-KW4NfY?usp=sharing to obtain the records on file in response to your request dated January 29, 2020, and received January 30, 2020, for the following:

Electronic copies of Public Records Act requests and City’s responses to PRA requests CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PRA LOG DECEMBER 2019 REQUEST NUMBERS PRA 2019-189 through PRA 2019-199, excluding PRA 2019-196.  

Thank you,

Britt Avrit, MMC

City Clerk

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

Your request for public records, including your email address, and the City’s response to your request are subject to disclosure as public records under the California Public Records Act.

PRA 2020-010 City Response

PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (PRA) LOG JANUARY 2020: PRA 2020-007

REQUEST NUMBER 2020-007

REQUEST DATE 1/21/2020

STATUS

COMPLETED DATE 1/31/2020

REQUESTOR William & Barbara Hood

INFORMATION REQUESTED all/any documents enumerated in letter attached to the request/dated November 28, 2017

PRA 2020-007 City Response