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

BART union employees went back to work Friday, July 5 without a new contract under a temporary agreement reached Thursday evening. Following three days without bargaining, management, state mediators, and the unions are scheduled to resume bargaining Monday, July 8. Negotiations will continue while operations resume for 30 days under the former contract terms.  New contracts with the unions will be retroactive to July 1, 2013. 

BART management and SEIU leaders expressed opposition to a cooling-off period. On June 25 BART Board President Tom Radulovich wrote to Governor Jerry Brown, asking that the 60-day cooling-off period not be invoked. The parties agreed to the 30-day deadline delay to allow negotiations to continue without a strike. On Saturday, the New York Times reported, “The two sides said that they hoped to reach an agreement before the new deadline, but remained far apart on key issues, including wages, state pensions and health insurance.” Theoretically, the strike could be renewed in early August, a low volume BART ridership period. In contrast, a Governor’s “60-day cooling off period” would have pushed the strike point into the high ridership period of early September.

As BART stations were unlocked and the trains began rolling Friday afternoon, BART General Manager Grace Crunican greeted riders in several stations with an apology for the four days without service and a prepaid clipper card.

At a 10:30 p.m. press conference on July 4, California Secretary of Labor Marty Morgenstern announced an agreement by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) management and Union representatives to end the strike temporarily.  The parties accepted Morgenstern’s recommendation that the current contracts be extended for one month, while negotiations continue.  

All riders should check the BART website at http://www.bart.gov/  for updates on schedules.

On July 4  campers were injured at Camp Augusta while racing in canoe go carts.  According to a report, two or more of the campers were flown by helicopter to a hospital.

 1:08 p.m.: Five people have been injured in a Soap Box derby accident at Camp Augusta outside of Nevada City, according to Cal Fire. Two of the injuries are critical, and victims are being transported via helicopter to local hospitals. Two other individuals suffered moderate injuries, while another person has minor injuries.

The accident occurred just before noon.

For additional information check the following links:

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/07/04/several-people-injured-at-nevada-county-camp/

http://www.sacramentosun.com/index.php/sid/215631603/scat/d10bacfff3f93dae

http://www.sacandco.net/news/article/249629/2/8-injured-in-Nevada-City-soap-box-derby

http://www.campaugusta.org

https://www.facebook.com/camp.augusta

Camp Augusta located in Nevada City, California, is a non-profit co-ed camp “donated to the girls of Piedmont in 1931 by Freda Ehmann in memory of her daughter’s mother-in-law, Augusta Collins.”  The camp has served generations of Piedmonters. For many years it was a Camp Fire girls camp.  In recent years boys and girls ages 8 to 16 have attended the camp.  It operates under the auspices of a Board of Directors.

History of Camp Augusta

In a Piedmonter article dated June 19, 2013, City Administrator Geoff Grote is quoted as follows:

“If we demand more than they are willing to pay, we have two choices — let it drop or proceed in arbitration that was included in the indemnity and reimbursement agreement (with PRFO).

“The City Council will make the final determination of the issue. We should have an announcement in the next several weeks.”

The Agreement calls in Section 8 for binding arbitration to finally settle any dispute and in Section 9 for any amendments, modifications or changes to the agreement to be in writing and to be signed by both parties. Mr. Grote’s comments indicate that a proposal modifying the Agreement to remove the arbitration requirement will come before the City Council in the next few weeks, if it has not already done so. In his June 20, 2013 email to me, Mr. Grote stated the following: “The Council is in the process of deciding what course of action they wish to pursue.” This indicates that the Council has already begun deliberating, as may be indicated by the June 17, 2013 closed session agenda, “Pursuant to G.C. Sec. 54956.9 the City Council will meet relating to possible initiation of litigation (one case)” which could be construed as referring to deliberations regarding entering into arbitration with PRFO.

I believe 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. If the Council takes action to forgive these debts to the City or to otherwise modify the terms of the Agreement, such action would not be in compliance with the Brown Act because there was no adequate notice to the public of the serial discussion of this issue by a majority of the Council members.

The Brown Act specifically prohibits any use of direct communication, intermediaries or technological devices by a majority of the members of a legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken. (Gov. Code § 54952.2). Such a series of separate discussions by individual members of a legislative body regarding matters within their jurisdiction without actually coming together and meeting is referred to as a serial meeting. This type of prohibited meeting can result from a series of communications of individual members or groups of members that are less than a quorum which then result in involving a majority of the members of the legislative body. A serial meeting is prohibited by the Act because the acquisition of information, as well as all debate, discussion, or any other aspect of the deliberative process is required to occur in public. The term “deliberation” has been broadly construed to include “not only collective discussion, but the collective acquisition and exchange of facts preliminary to the ultimate decision.” Rowen v. Santa Clara Unified School Dist. (1981) 121 Cal. App. 3d 231; 84 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 30 (Feb. 20, 2001) Thus, the use of direct communications, personal intermediaries, or technological devices by a majority of members to develop a collective concurrence as to action taken by the legislative body is illegal.

Providing substantive information from staff to members of a legislative body may be a violation when such information is a part of systematic communications for preparation for a meeting or engaging in discussion, lobbying or any other aspect of the deliberative process. For example,

Strike continues as BART attempts to hold costs down, and unions press for increased compensation and work condition changes in their contracts. –

Ever increasing costs of health care  and pensions have placed a heavy burden on the public sector paid for by taxpayers.  BART  and other public employee benefit costs have been significant in budgets. The disparity between the benefits of an average private sector worker and public employee has been growing, as taxpayers become increasingly aware of issues such as some free pensions and lifetime health benefits.

During the bargaining process (including the strike period), employee proposals and management proposals are not open to the public due to labor laws. However, some information has become available on what is being discussed in the bargaining process.

According to an AP article on Saturday, June 29:

The unions want a 5 percent annual raise over the next three years.  Currently, train operators and station agents are paid in the low $60,000 range. Employees average $16,590 in overtime annually and pay a flat $92 monthly fee for health insurance.

Meanwhile, BART has offered a 1 percent raise annually over the next four years and for employees to contribute to their pensions. Yahoo.com

Unlike most private employees, public employees have enjoyed guaranteed pensions, to which many have made very low or no contributions.  Most retirees in the private sector, vigilantly watch their expenses, IRA’s or 401 Ks.  Public employees need not worry about the stock market or investments made by their pension provider, as their pension amounts are guaranteed during all economic periods.  This pension guarantee received little notice by the public until recently when CalPERS funds, where BART’s retirees are vested, took a nose dive.  The drop in value of the CalPERS funds, caused participating agencies such as Piedmont and BART to increase contributions to meet beneficiary costs.

According to an article in the Mercury News:

The average BART worker — including management and non-union employees — made $83,157 in gross pay in 2012, up from $80,588 in 2010, according to an analysis of payroll records by this newspaper. An 8 percent wage bump, on top of a 1 percent pay increase already set to kick in Monday, would push the average BART employee’s gross pay to about $90,600 in 2016.

BART spokesman Rick Rice said they also offered “meaningful reductions” to employee pension and health care contributions compared to what agency officials had proposed earlier. Pay, pension contributions and medical costs are the three big issues left, and unions were set to review the latest proposal Saturday night.

Rice said that their latest offer would give workers enough money to see a “net increase” in total compensation even with workers contributing more to their health care and pension plans.

Union leaders have said they were willing to budge on the issues of pensions and health care benefits but it’s unclear how far they’re willing to go. Currently, BART workers don’t pay toward their pensions and give $92 a month toward their medical benefits, regardless of the number of dependents. Including pay and benefits, the average cost for BART for each employee was $116,309 last year, up from $110,017 in 2010.  Mercury News

AC Transit continued service on Monday, July 1, requiring many bus drivers and employees to work extra hours to provide needed transportation support.   In some cases, these employees receive time-and-a-half or double-time compensation.  It is unknown at this point if AC Transit, whose contract has also expired, will go on strike simultaneously with BART.  Negotiations are continuing.