PROPOSED DECISION: 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, 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. Application 13-05-017 (Filed May 24, 2013)

ABSTRACT:  On January 6, 2015, Seaneen Wilson, California Public Utilities Commission Administrative Law Judge, issued a PROPOSED DECISION, namely 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, 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, Application 13-05-017, (Filed May 24, 2013). Note: Opening comments, which shall not exceed 15 pages, are due January 26, 2015. Reply comments, which shall not exceed 5 pages, are due 5 days after the last day for filing comments. The DECISION “would allow California American Water to charge its Monterey-area customers for about $1.9 million of the county water resources agency’s spending on the failed regional desalination project” and “keep the county’s regional desal project billings under seal, including administrative, consultant and legal expenses,” according to reporting in The Monterey County Herald. The PROPOSED DECISION document and Application filed by California-American Water Company on 05/24/2013, including Attachments 1-5, documents are embedded.

PROPOSED DECISION A13-05-017 01-06-15

PROPOSED DECISION
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
Application 13-05-017
(Filed May 24, 2013)

Application of Cal Am a1305017 05-24-13

APPLICATION OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY (U 210 W) 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 1SURCHARGE BALANCING ACCOUNT
(PUBLIC VERSION)
Application 13-05-017
(Filed May 24, 2013)

EXHIBIT A A1305017 05-24-13

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B A1305017 05-24-13

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C A1305017 05-24-13

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT D A1305017 05-24-13

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT E A1305017 05-24-13

EXHIBIT E

REFERENCES:

CPUC judge gives thumbs-up to Cal Am, county deal on regional project costs

By Jim Johnson, Monterey Herald

Posted: 01/06/15

Judge approves Cal Am settlement with county, Water Resources Agency.

by Kera Abraham MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY

Posted: Tuesday, January 6, 2015

CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD San Jose Office of Appeals ALJ Luma S. Williams’ DECISION IN THE LESLIE S. FENTON CASE NO. 5258347

ABSTRACT:  In Administrative Law Judge Luma S. Williams’ decision in the Leslie S. Fenton Case No.: 5258347 (July 2014), the DECISION states: “The department determination is reversed. The claimant is not disqualified under code section 1256. Benefits are payable provided the claimant is otherwise eligible.”  Moreover, “The claimant appealed from a determination disqualifying the claimant for unemployment benefits under Unemployment Insurance Code section 1256.  The issue in this case is whether the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with the most recent work.”  REASONS FOR DECISION, states, in part, “In this matter, the claimant made credible statements in her written declaration, supported by documentation from a forensic expert, to rebut the allegations made by the employer.  The employer, on the other hand, did not appear at the hearing, nor did it provide any evidence, aside from hearsay statements, to support the allegations made against the claimant, even though it had the opportunity to do so. Accordingly, the statements made by the claimant are given greater weight.”  And “In this matter, the employer has not met its burden of proving that the claimant substantially breached any duty or obligation owed to the employer.  Accordingly. the claimant was discharged for reasons other than misconduct connected with her most recent work and is not disqualified under code section 1256.  Benefits are payable provided the claimant is otherwise eligible.”  ALJ Luma S. Williams’ Decision in Case No.: 5258347 document is embedded.

NOTE:  On August 22, 2014, a public records act request was submitted to the City for Administrative Law Judge Luma Williams’ decision in former Administrative Coordinator Leslie Fenton’s case. On August 28, 2014, the City denied the request.  On September 3, 2014, the City’s response, copied to City Attorney Don Freeman via Leanne Graham, his legal secretary, stated “Attached regarding your Public Records Request is additional statue of Unemployment Code exemption from Public Records as follows: Except as otherwise specifically provided in this code, the information obtained in the administration of this code is confidential, not open to the public, and shall be for the exclusive use and information of the director in discharge of his or her duties.”  However, on September 26, 2014, Presiding ALJ Mitchell Davis facilitated requestor’s receipt of ALJ Luma S. Williams’ decision in the Leslie S. Fenton case stating that the decision was a public record, subject to the Public Records Act.

CUIAB Leslie Fenton Case No. 5258347

San Jose Office of Appeals

ALJ: Luma S. Williams

Case No.: 5258347

CL T/PET: Leslie S. Fenton

REFERENCE:
Judge finds that planning department worker was not fired for ‘misconduct’
By MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone, August 22, 2014, 27A

CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD San Jose Office of Appeals ALJ T.J. MINOR’S DECISION IN THE MARGATET M. PEROTTI CASE NOS. 5307895 & 5307896

ABSTRACT:  In Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) T.J. Minor’s decision in the Margatet M. Perotti Case No.: 5307895 (September 2014), the DECISION states: “The time to appeal is extended. The Department determination is reversed.  The claimant is qualified under code section 1256. Benefits are payable provided the claimant is otherwise eligible.”  Moreover, “The claimant appealed from a determination disqualifying the claimant for unemployment benefits under Unemployment Insurance Code section 1256.  The issue in this case is whether the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with the most recent work.  An additional issue is whether the appeal was filed within 20 days from the date the department's notice was mailed and, if not, whether there is good cause to extend the 20-day deadline.”  REASONS FOR DECISION, states, in part, “The employer's "factual basis" for the termination, so called in its letter of March 26, 2014 presented by the employer for the hearing, apparently is the "systems surveillance log" purportedly listing the individual uses of the claimant's computer to access other employee's computers and emails.  The foundation for this evidence is substantially lacking.  Further, the conclusions asserted by the employer concerning that surveillance log data were substantially and compellingly debunked by a technical analysis report presented by the claimant at the hearing.  The employer had the ability to present witness testimony to support its conclusions but failed to do so.  This gives further cause to view the employer's evidence with distrust.  As a result of the foregoing, the claimant's credible testimony was entitled to and was given greater weight than the employer's hearsay evidence, resulting in the Findings of Fact, above.”  And “In the present case, the evidence has failed to demonstrate the claimant knowingly violated any policy or duty she owed the employer.  The employer had not warned her previously about any similar conduct.  Despite the numerous allegations of wrongdoing, the employer presented no evidence of any motive for the claimant to invade her co-workers' emails or access and destroy any of the employer's documents.  Such tends strongly to further undercut the credibility of the accusations.  The employer has not met its burden of proving the claimant willfully or wantonly breached an important duty.  It is therefore found that the claimant was discharged for reasons other than misconduct and is qualified under code section 1256. Benefits are payable provided the claimant is otherwise eligible.”  In Case No.: 5307896, “The claimant appealed from a determination that held the claimant not eligible for benefits under Unemployment Insurance Code section 1253(c) beginning May 4, 2014.  The issue in this case is whether the claimant was available for work. An additional issue is whether the appeal was filed within 20 days from the date the department's notice was mailed and, if not whether there is good cause to extend the 20-day deadline.”  DECISION “The time to appeal is extended.  The department determination is reversed.  The claimant is eligible for benefits under code section 1253(c) beginning May 4, 2014. Benefits are payable provided the claimant is otherwise eligible.”  ALJ T.J. Minor’s Decision in Case No.: 5307895 and Case No.: 5307896, document is embedded.

CUIAB Margaret Perotti Case Nos. 530795, 5307896

San Jose Office of Appeals

ALJ: T.J. Minor

Case No.: 5307895

CL T/PET: Margaret M Perotti

Case No.: 5307896

CL T/PET: Margaret M Perotti

REFERENCE:

Perotti awarded unemployment benefits

City’s evidence against her ‘substantially lacking,’ judge says
By MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone September 26, 2014, 8A