At the July 16 Oakland City Council meeting, a vote on phase two of its Federally funded Domain Awareness Center (DAC) was delayed until July 30 in response to citizens’ privacy concerns. Officials describe DAC as an “immense time-saving tool” for their police and fire departments. It will assemble multiple sources of data and video  streams from across the city– the Coliseum, the Port, Oakland schools, as well as  license-plate readers, gunshot detectors, Twitter feeds, and alarm notifications– to create a unified “situational awareness” computer base. Information provided by the Piedmont Police Department would feed into Oakland’s DAS, including the new LPR system photos of license plates and cars crossing Oakland/Piedmont borders. Oakland’s City Council approved DAC in concept in 2010. The second phase of DAC was approved by the Oakland Public Safety Committee on July 9. It will involve collaborating with other government entities to share additional data and video feeds for the DAC, according to Renee Domingo, Oakland’s Director of Emergency Services.

Several other cities have experience with the DAC concept. Long Beach was the first in California, opening its $21 million security Command and Control Center in June,2011. Microsoft Corporation and the New York Police Department (NYPD) launched their Domain Awareness System (DAS) last summer and subsequently licensed it to other cities. DAS analyzes crime patterns in real time, integrating geographic information displays with massive layers of personal history–including both criminal and public domain information–about any suspect in a matter of seconds. DAS collects and archives streams from thousands of NYPD and private CCTV cameras in New York City, integrating data from multiple non-NYPD intelligence databases 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Its headquarters in a lower Manhattan office tower features a command-and-control center staffed around the clock by both New York police and stakeholders, including the Federal Reserve, Bank of New York, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer, and CitiGroup. Metadata  collected by DAS will be retained for five years, and unspecified “environmental data” will be stored indefinitely.

DAC and DAS are based on the 2001 Total Information Awareness (TIA) program headed by John Poindexter in response to the 9/11 attack. It is a functional view of world-wide information. Transaction space (internet, landlines, satellite phones, cellphones, etc) is mined to discover and track terrorists through their information signature. TIA was developed to pick terrorist signals out of the vast information stream. To get a sense of TIA, DAS and DAC, readers can watch the two-year-old CBS TV fictional crime drama “Person of Interest” which was inspired by the federal TIA.

More information:

http://oaklandwiki.org/Domain_Awareness_Center

A significant number of major retail stores gather personal  information and shopping behavior patterns from the smartphones of customers. Retailers use the information about customers’ moods and movements to determine displays, product areas and more.  The New York Times reports that retailers learn, “… information as varied as their sex, how many minutes they spend in the candy aisle and how long they look at merchandise before buying it. All sorts of retailers — including national chains, like Family Dollar, Cabela’s and Mothercare, a British company, and specialty stores like Benetton and Warby Parker — are testing these technologies and using them to decide on matters like changing store layouts and offering customized coupons.” Nordstrom’s announced that it has terminated wifi data mining of its customers.

Few shoppers are aware that they are revealing as much about themselves to brick and mortar stores as to online shopping sites. Removing the smartphone battery would prevent exposing personal information in a suspected data mining environment but the most popular smartphones have embedded batteries. Many smartphone owners keep their devices set on the automatic wifi setting, the gateway that allows retailers to gather customer information. Interestingly, simpler, older cellphones, without wifi capability, reveal nothing to retailers.

Read more:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2013/07/15/retail-stores-track-customers.html

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2013/07/15/stores-tracking-consumer-shopping-data/

At the University of California Regents meeting on Thursday, July 18 at UCSF Mission Bay, recent Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano was elected President of the ten campus University. Student regent Cinthia Flores cast the only vote against Napolitano. Flores told the Daily Californian, “Napolitano will make an excellent manager and administrator.  However, I think she may need time to familiarize herself with the University system and the unique responsibilities of the University of California President.” Several reporters described the meeting as raucous, with students lining up to oppose the candidate, protestors yelling, “Shame! Shame!” and six arrests, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Her annual base salary will be $570,000 which is less than the $591,084 base salary of outgoing President Mark Yudof. (Yudof’s annual compensation package was $925,000, including car and housing allowances, retirement contributions and other benefits, making him one of the nation’s most highly paid college Presidents.) In addition to her base salary, Napolitano will receive $28,500 annually in special senior management benefits, retirement contributions and other benefits as well as expense allowances. She will also receive $142,500 for relocation expenses. Altogether, a nice improvement over her $199,700 salary as homeland security secretary.

The current president told the New York Times that fundraising is not done by the office of the president.  Nevertheless, the new president faces a funding shortfall predicted to be $2.9 billion by 2016. In the past two decades the state contribution to the per student cost of UC has declined 65%. For 2013-14 the state will appropriate $2.64 billion toward the UC $24.3 billion budget. Nevertheless, it has continued to burden the university with unfunded mandates. Although the State of California provides only 11% of the UC budget, in a relic of past centuries when it provided virtually the entire support, state government controls all major governing decisions for the university. (In addition to selecting the UC President, the Board of Regents sets tuition, enrollment levels, salaries, etc.) Of the 26 Regents, 18 are appointed by the Governor, the one student regent is appointed by the Board of Regents, the remaining regents are ex-officio–the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the State Assembly, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, UC Alumni Association President, UC Alumni Association Vice President and the UC President.

Student tuition contributes 13% toward the UC budget, but there is only one student regent. The majority of UC support comes from faculty inventions and technology transfers that are the property of the University as a result of employment and the multitude of faculty-generated proposals that win grants, contracts and chair endowments from private foundations, individuals, the U.S. federal government, foreign governments, private industry, multi-government entities such as the European Union, United Nations and Commonwealth of Independent States, etc. The faculty has no representation on the governing Board of Regents.

Read more

Three meetings were held at City Hall with Council members, the City Administrator and leaders of Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) to “discuss the remaining money issues.”  Correspondence by email between the negotiating parties was provided to a citizen in response to a Public Record Act (PRA) request. The question under discussion that led to the PRA request, is whether this series of meetings discussed city business and did it amount to a serial meeting and thus, require public notice under the Brown Act.

Eric Havian, PRFO leader to Mayor John Chiang and City Administrator Geoff Grote on December 12, 2012:

John and Geoff,

Now that the lawsuit has been resolved, PRFO would like to have a meeting with you to discuss the remaining money issues.  Do you have some time in early January when we could meet?

Eric R. Havian

Mayor John Chiang to Eric Havian, PRFO leader on December 13, 2012:

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your message. Let’s try to schedule something the week of the 14th of January.  I know Geoff will be on vacation and will be busy the week of January 7th.  That will also give us time to gather up to date information for our discussion.  If you have some suggested dates that will work, let me know.  Late afternoons work best for me and I suspect for you too.

Have a great holiday season!

John

John Y. Chiang

The meeting occurred at City Hall on January 31, 2013.  It was attended by Mayor John Chiang, City Administrator Geoffrey Grote, with PRFO leaders Eric Havian, Steven Ellis, and Mark Menke.

City Administrator Geoff Grote to Eric Havian, PRFO leader on March 20, 2013:

Eric,

The Mayor would like to continue the conversation on costs for the Blair Park Project and would like to know if you, Mark, and Steve are available to meet anytime the first two weeks in April? John is out of town on April 4th; but will try and make any other dates work.  We were thinking that meeting late in the day seemed to work; 4 or 4:30 or 5 PM.

Thanks, Geoff

The second negotiating meeting occurred at City Hall on April 11, 2013.  It was attended by Mayor John Chiang, Council member Robert McBain, City Administrator Geoffrey Grote, with PRFO leaders Eric Havian, and Mark Menke. The third negotiating meeting occurred at City Hall on June 17, 2013.  It was attended by Council member Margaret Fujioka, City Administrator Geoffrey Grote, with PRFO leaders Eric Havian, and Mark Menke.

Dear Mr. Rood,

 

The City of Piedmont is in receipt of your public Records Requested dated July 1, 2013 requesting, “…all records, emails and communications related to the negotiations with PRFO that took place on Jan. 31, 2013; April 11, 2013; and June 17, 2013, including all records, emails and communications prepared in preparation for these negotiation meetings.”

 

The City of Piedmont is pleased to provide the following records in response to your request:

• Email string from Steven Ellis to Eric Havian and Geoff Grote dated January 22, 2013
• Email string from Geoff Grote to Rosie Navarro dated January 23, 2013
• Email string from Robert McBain to Geoffrey Grote dated March 1, 2013
• Email from Robert McBain to Geoffrey Grote dated March 4, 2013
• Email string from John Chiang to Geoffrey Grote dated March 20, 2013
• Email string from Steve Ellis to Geoffrey Grote, et al, dated March 21, 2013
• Email string from Geoffrey Grote to John Chiang dated March 21, 2013
• Email string from Robert McBain to Geoffrey Grote dated March 21, 2013
• Email string from John Chiang to Geoffrey Grote dated March 22, 2013
• Email string from Eric Havian to John Chiang, et al., dated March 22, 2013
• Email string from Mark Menke to John Chiang, et al., dated March 22, 2013
• Email string from Robert McBain to Geoffrey Grote, dated March 22, 2013
• Moraga Canyon Sports Fields Professional Costs – dated December 31, 2012
• Burke Williams Sorensen, Friends of Moraga Canyon vs. City of Piedmont – undated

I believe this fulfills the records request you filed with the City of Piedmont. 

Questions persist on Brown Act compliance.

Violation of the Brown Act by Council members’ contiguously and jointly meeting with Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) leaders depends on the subjects discussed in the meetings, links of the various meetings, participants at the meetings and the possibility of staff acting as an intermediary.

The Brown Act (CA Gov. Code § 54952.2 (b)(1))  “A majority of the members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting authorized by this chapter, use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.”

Questions have been raised by citizens regarding the right of Council members together with the City Administrator to meet, without public notice, with individuals to discuss “any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.”

On January 31, April 11, and June 17, 2013 at various times three members of the City Council met with signers to an agreement between the Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) and the City.  Because staff and Council members had indicated the intention to meet with PRFO to discuss the outstanding unpaid reimbursement balance, these meetings are  presumed to involve settling the payments owed by PRFO.  No other agenda has been offered for the three meetings with the PRFO leaders, but if no City business was discussed, no public notice was required.

At the meetings PRFO was represented by two leaders in each meeting and a third PRFO leader joined one meeting.  The City was represented by the City Administrator and the Mayor alone or with an additional Council member or by a third Council member alone. This composed a majority of the Council and the principals of PRFO meeting for the purpose of negotiating the amount of money owed to the City of Piedmont for expenditures on behalf of PRFO’s Blair Park project. 

In a statement in the July 5, 2013 , Piedmonter,  Assistant City Attorney Rafael Mandelman said,  “We take the Brown Act seriously.  I looked into (the matter) and it doesn’t seem to me there was a violation. There was never any deliberation among a (City Council) quorum or any discussion about what other council members said.  The elements don’t seem to be there.”

Piedmonter and former Planning Commissioner Melanie Robertson wrote, “..at the end of the three meetings, three of the five City Council members–Mayor Chiang, McBain and Fujioka–in addition to Grote, had met with PRFO officials Havian and Menke about the PRFO debt but without public notice, participation or comment.  The Brown Act provides that the three members of the council ‘taken as a whole invovles a majority of the body’s members.’ thus, the three meetings combined, as defined in the Brown Act, clearly constitute serial meetings and therefore are in violation of the Brown Act.”

It is not known what has been deliberated, but negotiations have been acknowledged in emails between the participants, which includes a majority (quorum) of the Council.   If the private negotiation meetings produced any conclusory information or direction, this has not been publicly announced.  Serial private meetings by a majority (quorum) of an elected body involving  negotiations, unless specifically exempted under the law, constitute a violation of the Brown Act.  It is unknown why the matter has not been placed on a public agenda for consideration and public input on the facts.   

During the review of  the development of Blair Park on Moraga Avenue in Piedmont by PRFO, an agreement to reimburse City expenses, for legal work and other consultants, was struck outside of public meetings between PRFO and the City.  The project was approved.   Following litigation brought by Friends of Moraga Canyon (FOMC) and objections by the City of Oakland, on May 7, 2012, the Council rescinded its approval. 

After the City’s costs were itemized, PRFO evidently contested some of the charges.  Details on the matter have been questioned and requested to be publicly discussed.  Costs, if not borne by PRFO, will fall to the City’s taxpayers through the City General Fund.

In response to a citizen inquiry, the City Administrator asserted that the private meetings supported by City staff are legal under the Brown Act. Tim Rood had observed that the meetings appeared inconsistent with the Brown Act.

The following links are provided for more information on the Brown Act:

http://www.cacities.org/UploadedFiles/LeagueInternet/86/86f75625-b7df-4fc8-ab60-de577631ef1e.pdf

http://www.asnc.us/2004-archives/Special-2004/0805-CityAttnyOpinionReNCs-BrownAct.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Act

http://www.brownact.4t.com/

The Board of Regents will vote on Thursday, July 18 on the candidate recommended by the search committee to be the next President of the University of California.  U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano was the unanimous recommendation. Sherry Lansing, Chair of the search committee, said, “As Secretary of Homeland Security, she has been an ardent advocate for the federal Dream Act and the architect of a policy that protects from deportation young undocumented immigrants who are pursuing a college education.” In Arizona Napolitano served as Governor (2003 to 2009), Attorney General (1998 to 2003), U.S. Attorney (1993 to 1997) and before that practiced at a law firm in Phoenix. She earned a B.A. degree from Santa Clara University and a  J.D. degree from the University of Virginia School of Law. In its Saturday, July 13 report on the nomination, the New York  Times noted Napolitano’s lack of faculty or administrative experience in the academic world.

If approved by the Board of Regents, Napolitano will follow the five-year term of Mark Yudof, who oversaw steep cuts in state funding combined with annual instate resident tuition increases from $6, 636 to $12,192. Yudof famously told the New York Times in 2009 that he didn’t know how he became UC President, “It’s all an accident. I thought I’d go work for a law firm.”

Yudof refused to live in UC’s ten acre Kensington estate overlooking the bay, claiming the home “needed $8 million of repairs and I decided that was not the way to go.” In 1957 the Blake estate was deeded to the University of California for educational use by Berkeley’s Department of Landscape Architecture, which superintends the extensive gardens. Mr. and Mrs. Anson Blake retained the right of lifetime occupancy of the house only, so it was not used by the University until 1963. Since Yudof was unwilling to live in the house without massive improvements, he was given a housing allowance of $10,000 per month to rent housing of his preference. In 2010 the Bay Citizen reported on Yudof’s relations with his Oakland landlord, “a two-year housing drama that has cost the university more than $600,000 and has drawn senior U.C. officials into an increasingly time-consuming and acrimonious ordeal over the president’s private residence.”

Blake House photo

Expect visiting family and friends to have flight delays at SFO – 

Over the weekend many San Francisco bound flights were diverted to land in Oakland, creating delays at that airport. On Monday, July 8 most flights into Oakland airport arrived on time or ahead of schedule.  Due to continuing National Transportation Safety Board investigation of the Asiana airline crash, delays of two hours or more were not unusual for arrivals at San Francisco airport Monday afternoon.

Current flight arrival status is available for both airports for all flights online.

San Francisco airport flight arrival times

Oakland airport flight arrival times

The new eastern span of the Bay Bridge won’t be ready to open on Labor Day –

At a closed door session on Monday, July 8 in Sacramento, the directors of agencies* in charge of the bridge construction project informed legislators of the delay.  Retrofitting the cracked bolts will put off the opening beyond mid-December. No new date for the opening has been set because the relocation of traffic from the current span to the new span requires closing the bridge for four days.

The Mercury News reports, “To take the loads originally intended for the steel rods, the bridge contractor, American Bridge/Fluor Enterprises, and Mare Island-based XKT Engineering, are fabricating and installing on each shear key a steel saddle and hanging across it super strong cables. …..The team blames the delay on the need to repair two key seismic stabilizers on the large pier east of the main span tower where 32 out of 96 anchor rods snapped after contractors tightened them down in March. Those won’t be done until Dec. 10.”

* The Toll Bridge Oversight Committee is composed of  the executive directors of Caltrans, Metropolitan Transportation Commission and California Transportation Commission.

The City provided the following letter to PCA, in answer to Tim Rood’s letter concerning meetings of various Councilmembers on the subject of the unpaid Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO) balance in connection with their Blair Park sports project.  (see previous correspondence)

July 5, 2013

Dear Mr.Rood:

The City of Piedmont is in receipt of your letter, dated July1, 2013, alleging that members of the City Council violated the Ralph M. Brown Act by meeting with representatives of the Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (“PRFO”). Tim, I fear that you have misconstrued the Brown Act in such a way as to imply that the Act prohibits constituents from discussing issues with their elected officials.

Specifically, your letter states your belief that ”the participation of a majority of the members of the City Council in one or more of the negotiation sessions with PRFO constituted a serial meeting of the City Council that was not properly noticed under the Brown Act.”

The residents of Piedmont have a basic right to meet with their elected officials.  This right is in fact so important that Government Code §54952.2(c)(1) specifically exempts contacts or communications between a member of a legislative body and “any other person “from the requirements of the Act.   The mere fact that a member of the public ultimately meets with a majority of the members of a legislative body in separate meetings does not in and of itself mean that a “meeting” has occurred within the meaning and regulatory reach of the Brown Act.  A meeting, serial or otherwise, occurs only where a quorum of Council has discussed, deliberated or taken action (§54952.2(b)(l)), none of which took place in the meetings between PRFO and the Councilmembers.

 

For years, the City of Piedmont has endeavored to meet and exceed the requirements of the Brown Act and provide ample public notice to residents. However, the Act has not previously been interpreted to prohibit members of the public from discussing issues with their elected officials. Indeed, Piedmonters opposed to PRFO’s proposed project have also met with Councilmembers and they were fully within their rights to do so.

 

Sincerely,

Geoffrey Grote, City Administrator

City of Piedmont

Injuries sustained on July 4 by eight campers and counselors during a ride in a “Cannogan”, a soapbox configured canoe with wheels, have been evaluated and treated.   “In an abundance of caution,” two of those injured were flown by helicopter to a nearby hospital.  The condition of all involved in the accident has not been announced.

When riding in the Cannogan, sturdy helmets and protective padding are worn.

The following letter was sent to camper families:

Dear Parents:

I wanted to let you know about a camping mishap that happened during session 2.

During a routine and popular camp activity, there was an accident that involved [8] campers and staff when a soapbox derby-like vehicle tipped over.  Injuries were generally consistent with what you would expect when a camper is thrown from a horse or falls off a mountain bike.  Out of an abundance of caution, the counselors who were present elected to seek an immediate medical diagnosis for all campers.  The counselors consulted with local medical authorities who provided instructions on how to ensure the kids were evaluated as soon as practicable. Those instructions were followed precisely.  Two of the campers demonstrated concussion symptoms and on advice, and in an abundance of caution, were flown to medical facilities as this was the most immediate method to transport the kids to the best facilities available.

We work to ensure that camp is a safe, enjoyable experience for everyone, but accidents can and do happen.  Substantial effort and training goes into minimizing these risks.  All the campers and staff were wearing appropriate safety equipment at the time of the accident. Fortunately, I understand none of the injuries are threatening and the kids and counselors are all healing.  We hope you understand that we take your child’s safety very seriously and will always err to the side of extreme caution.

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to call Camp Augusta.

Campingly yours,

Randy Grayson (Director)

Steve Rogers (Board Chair)

 Camp Augusta