That's what Tribune columnist Bob Cuddy called the Board of Supervisor meetings -- Trollosphere, "that shadowy online world where sad, twisted losers project the frustrations of their failed lives onto normal people by insulting them viciously in comment sections on the Internet."
Bob forgot to note that in real Troll-World, the sad, twisted losers are almost always "anonymous," whereas the people who earned Bob's ire were standing at the BOS podium during Public Comment and had identified themselves. And while their Trollish comments aren't being broadcast via radio, their faces are on camera for online streaming of the meetings. So, hardly "anonymous."
But, yes, according to Bob's March 24th column,"Supervisors beset with a toxic air"
( http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/02/23/2404474/toxic-mix-at-the-board-of-supervisors.html ) the Board is now further mired into a deeper mud puddle, so it's become the gift that keeps on giving; to board watchers and columnists, at least.
Underlying the grumbling ill-will is, of course, the remnants of the Hideous Sewer Wars. Over that we added the often ridiculous spectacle of Adam Hill and his intemperate temper issues, followed by Bruce Gibson's, uh, lady-friend debacle, followed by the election of Debbie Arnold who waltzed in to immediately challenge the Old Gentleman's Club of too cozy logrolling committeeship/chair appointments. Which got the old boys huffing like Senator Cleghorn Foghorn --"Now, now, li'l Lady, I suggest ya'all are new here so ah think y'all need to take a seat ovah there an' keep quiet 'till y'all can learn how we'all do thangs in this heah chamber."
Which surely didn't endeared the Board to Ms. Arnold or Ms. Arnold to the Board. Cuddy thinks that there's "a lot of blame to go around. Gibson's behavior and Adam Hill's sharp tongue are factors. But a significant cause of the venom is clearly the behavior of Arnold and the enraged people who back her." Cuddy also adds, "The Arnold crowd has significant policy difference with Gibson, Hill and more regulation-oriented board members and staff."
Which raises an immediate question: What evidence does Cuddy offer that Arnold's backers (who have significant policy differences) are "enraged?" I couldn't find any in his column; perhaps that will be forthcoming.
Meanwhile, what seemed to get Cuddy's goat about last Tuesday's meeting was two-fold: Tom Salmon, who has demonstrated intemperate temperament issues of his own, got up during public comment and referred to Gibson's girlfriend/aide as a "whore" and a "prostitute," and Chairman Teixeira tried to shush Salmon (good luck with that) which prompted several Los Ososian Sewerites into hollering about free speech during Public Comment. Sigh.
After which, Cuddy reports, Debbie Arnold thanked Salmon for his comments, "assuring him that each of the five supervisory offices is autonomous and that the inhabitants therein conduct themselves differently," thereby attempting to pull her skirt hems away from the Gibson mud pile. While everyone else sat on their hands wishing Gibson into the corn field and, I'm guessing, rolling their eyes like trapped feral cats.
Well, what else can anyone expect? Those three minutes of public comment have always been often dangerous [but powerfully protected] I.E.Ds. in the hands of the crazy, the disgruntled, the bone-pickers, the furious, the righteous and the concerned. And the power of that I.E.D. is fueled by divisive issues and/or disgraceful behavior by those in power. In this case, the burr under the public's saddle is Supervisor Gibson' bad behavior which was followed by his successfully gaming the system to suit his needs -- the public (and his fellow Supervisors) be damned. There's nothing like it for fueling fury and for creating chronically hostile Board meetings, since the burr remains firmly under the saddle and fellow Supervisors are stuck with keeping silent, (and incurring public criticism for that silence) or speaking out (and having Bob Cuddy accuse them of "poking a finger in [a fellow board members's] eye).
Truly a disagreeable set of Hobson's Choices, all of which turns the BOS into TrollVille. And The Gibson Problem will remain in place until he and/or his girlfriend/aide resign, which will happen when pigs fly. One thing for sure is this: Both Adam Hill and Bruce Gibson have publicly demonstrated they are not in control of themselves, are blind to the iron Rule of Caesar's Wife that comes with public office, and, as a result, have showed extremely poor judgement. If past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior, I think the public has a perfect right to consider, question, reference past behavior whenever a supervisor is considering and/or voting on some complex, contentious issue that requires good judgement, since that vote (and that judgement) will affect the public.
Meantime, our BOS is in for some lively times. Especially with the new so-called "enraged" Arnold crowd . . . whoever those people might be . . . joining the usual suspects. . Keep your seat belts fastened.
Showing posts with label SLO Board of Supervisors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SLO Board of Supervisors. Show all posts
Monday, February 25, 2013
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Really? Bruce Too II?
Awww, ya gotta be kidding me. Tuesday Tribune headlines: "County mulls a code of behavior," and states, "In the wake of an affair between county Supervisor Bruce Gibson and his legislative aide, a pair of key county officials say it is time to develop a code of conduct that would regulate such behavior."
Gee, ya think?
Let's consider: Two years ago, Supervisor Gibson had a front row seat when he presided over and voted to fire County Administrator Dave Edge for his e-mail involvement in the Gail Wilcox Hot Mess mess. Up close and personal, he read the investigator's expensive, tax-payer financed report, with all the juicy details that ensue when people start Walking While Stupid, none of which involved Edge sleeping with anyone not his wife, by the way. Furthermore, the Tribune notes that Gibson is "chairman of CSAC's [County Supervisors Association of California] government and operations policy committee, which deals with, among other things, employee relations. (emphasis mine.) I know of no government office that officially approves of a boss sleeping with his employee. Indeed, it's generally understood that that's a really, really bad idea and is universally cautioned against. Yet none of these things stopped Supervisor Gibson from sleeping with the legislative aide he hired.
Which means 1) Supervisor Gibson feels he is above any and all behavior norms, codes of conduct, or even common sense. Or 2) Supervisor Gibson is incapable of learning anything from context and so is greatly in need of a list of clearly spelled out rules, such as, "Do Not Stick A Pencil In Your Eye," "Do Not Step Into The Open Door Of An Empty Elevator Shaft,"and "Do Not Have Sex With Your Subordinates."
So, yes, Board of Supervisors, please do let's get a Code. It's too late to stop this particular horse's ass from bolting from the barn, but maybe it'll help other context-challenged Supervisors and/or employees.
Gee, ya think?
Let's consider: Two years ago, Supervisor Gibson had a front row seat when he presided over and voted to fire County Administrator Dave Edge for his e-mail involvement in the Gail Wilcox Hot Mess mess. Up close and personal, he read the investigator's expensive, tax-payer financed report, with all the juicy details that ensue when people start Walking While Stupid, none of which involved Edge sleeping with anyone not his wife, by the way. Furthermore, the Tribune notes that Gibson is "chairman of CSAC's [County Supervisors Association of California] government and operations policy committee, which deals with, among other things, employee relations. (emphasis mine.) I know of no government office that officially approves of a boss sleeping with his employee. Indeed, it's generally understood that that's a really, really bad idea and is universally cautioned against. Yet none of these things stopped Supervisor Gibson from sleeping with the legislative aide he hired.
Which means 1) Supervisor Gibson feels he is above any and all behavior norms, codes of conduct, or even common sense. Or 2) Supervisor Gibson is incapable of learning anything from context and so is greatly in need of a list of clearly spelled out rules, such as, "Do Not Stick A Pencil In Your Eye," "Do Not Step Into The Open Door Of An Empty Elevator Shaft,"and "Do Not Have Sex With Your Subordinates."
So, yes, Board of Supervisors, please do let's get a Code. It's too late to stop this particular horse's ass from bolting from the barn, but maybe it'll help other context-challenged Supervisors and/or employees.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Dive In
Swim time! Or not. "SLO County Sheriff's Department: Fake "Los Osos Community pool Association" a "Civil matter." at http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com
Well, of course it is. As it says in Chinatown: ". . .as little as possible . . . ."
Well, of course it is. As it says in Chinatown: ". . .as little as possible . . . ."
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Aw, Adam Hill Doesn't Like Los Osos Either, Does He?
So the Shredder sticks pins in what he calls the Los Osos Sewer Nuts. Now New Times reports that on Oct 11th, Linde Owen came to the microphone to object to "what she said was a lax county investigation into a relationship between Public Works Director Paavo Ogren and former Los Osos Community Services District director Maria Kelly" and County Supervisor Adam Hill shut her down, claimed he wouldn't allow "slanderous" statements at public comment time. So Hill cut off Owen's microphone and whistled up the sherrif's deputy who escorted Owens from the lecturn.
The following week Linde and others came back to the microphone to condemn Hill for cutting off Owen's 3 minutes and violating various public comment statutes and etc. Then Erick Greening, The Most Amazing Civic Minded Person In The Room, Always, stood up and, according to the New Times article, said:
"I'm a grateful user of the First Amendment. Whenever I hear speakers that I agree with I'm grateful for the First Amendment. When I hear speakers I disagree with I'm grateful for the First Amendment. When I hear people presenting illuminating information I"m grateful for the First Amendment. When I hear people presenting what I think is misinformation I'm grateful for the First Amendment. And when I get up there and correct what I think is misinformation I'm grateful for the First Amendment. And I hope everyone in this room always treasures the First Amedment on that basis and we all have a chance to use it."
THAT's why I call Eric The Most Amazing Civic Minded Person In The Room, Always.
Apparently, our Mr. Hill didn't make a peep and, I'm sure, didn't hear a word Eric had to say. Poor Mr. Hill. He hasn't quite figured out that it's impossible to get the public out of public comment. I fear he's in over his head, has risen to his level of incompetence and just hasn't mastered the art all Supervisors need to master: The art of the Snile -- you know it well, the just-slightly insincere smile crossed with a barely perceptible sneer, a deliciously subtle fake (but deniable) smirk that communicates the following perfectly: Thank you for sharing now shut the f--k up and go away thank you.
Instead, Hill panics and turns bully-boy and that never works out well. Not with Bearish folks from Los Osos.
Somebody Get These Guys A Calculator? An Abacus? Some Fingers and Toes?
Are you still here? The world was supposed to end yesterday. Yep, the Oakland-based Family Radio International, the folks who brought you the Rapture last May that didn't rapt, said their 90-year-old leader, Harold Camping, was at it again. Sez the good reverend, "Thus we can be sure that the whold world, with the exception of those who are presently saved (the elect) are under the judgment of God, and will be annihilated together with the whole physical world on Oct 21."
Well, bless Harold's little heart. Here it is the 22nd and I'm staring at the computer screen and the dogs are snoozing on their beds and the sun is about to come upjust like it has for the past, oh, I don't know, gazillion years and will continue to do so for another gazillion. Well, DANG!
OH, Don't Worry, Take A Pill. That's What We Do Here In Toxic Nation
This from a Nation Roundup in the Trib: "About 1 in 25 adolescents in the United States is taking an anti-depressant, according to a new government study billed as the first to offer such statistics on that age group. " The ages studies were from 12 to 17 and was based on surveys and depression screenings of about 12,000 U.S. adolescents and adults, 2005 through 2008.
The study also found that about 1 in 10 adults are taking antidepressants as well.
Wait, it gets better: From the L.A. Times: A new report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, a leading health policy foundation, found that "The U.S. health care system is lagging further and further behind other industrialized countries on major measures of quality, efficiency and access to care."
Even better, is this conclusion: "Despite the problems with access and quality, the U.S. continues to spend far more than other industrialized nations on health care, with per capital spending now topping $8,000 a year, more than twice what most other industrialized countries spend."
In short, we pay more for crappier health care and have poorer health outcomes than other countries. Someone seeing that might conclude that Americans are stupid. In our case, it would be more accurate to say we're overweight and sick and stupid-- fools just asking to be fleeced.
No wonder we and our children are depressed. That's what living in a sick, fleeced, toxic culture can do to you if you're dumb enough to keep clinging to the status quo. So, eat up those Big Macs and keep shoving tranqs down your kids gullets. And whatever you do, be sure to vote for politiciams who will dismantle Obamacare and Medicare/Medicade, public health programs, and will remove all government regulatons on the health care industry as a whole. After all, the free marketplace will solve all our health care problems. True, a reformed and improved, innovative Medicare for All type national health care program might be able to actually deliver better health outcomes for less money to everyone in our very, very sick nation, but that would be "socialized medicine" and in Toxic America, we can't have that.
The following week Linde and others came back to the microphone to condemn Hill for cutting off Owen's 3 minutes and violating various public comment statutes and etc. Then Erick Greening, The Most Amazing Civic Minded Person In The Room, Always, stood up and, according to the New Times article, said:
"I'm a grateful user of the First Amendment. Whenever I hear speakers that I agree with I'm grateful for the First Amendment. When I hear speakers I disagree with I'm grateful for the First Amendment. When I hear people presenting illuminating information I"m grateful for the First Amendment. When I hear people presenting what I think is misinformation I'm grateful for the First Amendment. And when I get up there and correct what I think is misinformation I'm grateful for the First Amendment. And I hope everyone in this room always treasures the First Amedment on that basis and we all have a chance to use it."
THAT's why I call Eric The Most Amazing Civic Minded Person In The Room, Always.
Apparently, our Mr. Hill didn't make a peep and, I'm sure, didn't hear a word Eric had to say. Poor Mr. Hill. He hasn't quite figured out that it's impossible to get the public out of public comment. I fear he's in over his head, has risen to his level of incompetence and just hasn't mastered the art all Supervisors need to master: The art of the Snile -- you know it well, the just-slightly insincere smile crossed with a barely perceptible sneer, a deliciously subtle fake (but deniable) smirk that communicates the following perfectly: Thank you for sharing now shut the f--k up and go away thank you.
Instead, Hill panics and turns bully-boy and that never works out well. Not with Bearish folks from Los Osos.
Somebody Get These Guys A Calculator? An Abacus? Some Fingers and Toes?
Are you still here? The world was supposed to end yesterday. Yep, the Oakland-based Family Radio International, the folks who brought you the Rapture last May that didn't rapt, said their 90-year-old leader, Harold Camping, was at it again. Sez the good reverend, "Thus we can be sure that the whold world, with the exception of those who are presently saved (the elect) are under the judgment of God, and will be annihilated together with the whole physical world on Oct 21."
Well, bless Harold's little heart. Here it is the 22nd and I'm staring at the computer screen and the dogs are snoozing on their beds and the sun is about to come upjust like it has for the past, oh, I don't know, gazillion years and will continue to do so for another gazillion. Well, DANG!
OH, Don't Worry, Take A Pill. That's What We Do Here In Toxic Nation
This from a Nation Roundup in the Trib: "About 1 in 25 adolescents in the United States is taking an anti-depressant, according to a new government study billed as the first to offer such statistics on that age group. " The ages studies were from 12 to 17 and was based on surveys and depression screenings of about 12,000 U.S. adolescents and adults, 2005 through 2008.
The study also found that about 1 in 10 adults are taking antidepressants as well.
Wait, it gets better: From the L.A. Times: A new report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, a leading health policy foundation, found that "The U.S. health care system is lagging further and further behind other industrialized countries on major measures of quality, efficiency and access to care."
Even better, is this conclusion: "Despite the problems with access and quality, the U.S. continues to spend far more than other industrialized nations on health care, with per capital spending now topping $8,000 a year, more than twice what most other industrialized countries spend."
In short, we pay more for crappier health care and have poorer health outcomes than other countries. Someone seeing that might conclude that Americans are stupid. In our case, it would be more accurate to say we're overweight and sick and stupid-- fools just asking to be fleeced.
No wonder we and our children are depressed. That's what living in a sick, fleeced, toxic culture can do to you if you're dumb enough to keep clinging to the status quo. So, eat up those Big Macs and keep shoving tranqs down your kids gullets. And whatever you do, be sure to vote for politiciams who will dismantle Obamacare and Medicare/Medicade, public health programs, and will remove all government regulatons on the health care industry as a whole. After all, the free marketplace will solve all our health care problems. True, a reformed and improved, innovative Medicare for All type national health care program might be able to actually deliver better health outcomes for less money to everyone in our very, very sick nation, but that would be "socialized medicine" and in Toxic America, we can't have that.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
C'mon Jake, it's Chinatown
Ron Crawford, of www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com wrote a letter to the SLO County Board of Supervisors. It’s posted here with permission.
On Sunday, the Tribune did a HUGE front page story on this issue, plus an editorial. Yet nowhere in that article was mention of SB959. Nowhere. Plus, I’m not even sure it was even mentioned in the staff report (though this whole jail project vote had been postponed when Ron first brought SB959 to the attention of the Sups, with one of them saying he was concerned with “the growing empire of incarceration.”)
The vote on this is today. Any bets on what a “broke” county with no interest in “Empire building” will do? Right.
Dear SLO County Supervisors,
Thank you for this opportunity to provide public comment for Item A-4, the women's jail expansion project, on your 2/22/11 agenda.
I urge your board to immediately stop development of the proposed women's jail expansion, and, instead, adopt an SB 959 style program of mandatory home detention, and then use a tiny fraction of the $10 million the county will save by the abandonment of the jail expansion project, to start a women's-only drug and alcohol rehab/prevention program in SLO County.
As I first reported in 2008 at this link:
http://calcoastnews.com/2008/07/crowded-womens-jail-is-big-lawsuit-threat/
... California law allows for counties in the state to enact programs that place "low risk" inmates on mandatory home detention in order to reduce overcrowding issues in local jails.
The law, SB 959, was passed in 2007, and supported by our local Republican assembly member, Sam Blakeslee, the California State Sheriff's Association, and was signed by a Republican Governor, Governor Schwarzenegger, and is already adopted by the vast majority of counties in the state.
SLO County is not one of them.
If your board were to immediately enact an SB 959 style program of mandatory home detention, that would, in turn, immediately remedy two HUGE problems currently facing SLO County government:
1) It would immediately eliminate the massive liability issue that currently exists (and has existed for the past several years, including since SB 959's passage in 2007) at the overcrowded-and-therefore-illegal women's jail facility, by giving the county the option to place the over-the-limit, "low-risk" women inmates, on mandatory home detention, where they will be monitored by skilled, law enforcement professionals.
That move would immediately bring the county into building code compliance with the currently illegal facility.
and;
2) (And, this is really HUGE): Immediately enacting a SB 959 style program would also immediately solve one of the most awkward situations I've ever seen in my 20-plus years of covering local government.
By deliberately housing people in a non-building-code-compliant facility -- as the county continues to do with the women's jail facility, when all it would take to immediately remedy the situation is a simple vote by County Supervisors -- SLO County government is guilty of doing EXACTLY what they are accusing local rancher, Dan De Vaul of doing, yet you're going hard-core-enforcement on him.
See what I mean there? It's a very awkward, and highly embarrassing situation for the county.
For the past few years, county enforcement officials have been hammering away at Mr. De Vaul for violating building codes by, allegedly, housing people in non-building-code-compliant structures, all the while the County is housing people in non-building-code-compliant structures, when all it would take for the county to immediately remedy your illegal situation is one, quick vote, simply to do what most counties in the state are already doing.
You know, now that I see it written that way, as far as SLO County officials are concerned, I can see how reason #2 might actually be even more important than reason #1 (and reason #1 is an amazingly important reason, considering that those illegally housed inmates are ALL sitting on a jackpot right now, and they don't even know it... yet. Let's just hope that one of them doesn't trip on one of those illegal mattresses on the floor, and "injure" their neck, BEFORE you pass a SB 959 program, huh?)
That second situation is flat-out embarrassing for the county, and one quick vote on a SB 959 style program would immediately make that highly embarrassing situation disappear, AND bring the county into building code compliance, finally.
Furthermore, the numbers associated with the jail expansion project, are, again (and there's really no other way to put it), embarrassing -- nearly three times the cost (just to the county) than the national average to house an inmate.
And when compared to the cost of mandatory home detention? There's no comparison.
Here's why:
According to the (September, 2010) staff report, there's enough space at the current facility to legally house 43 inmates. However, also according to the staff report, the average population at the facility is 73 inmates, so, we're talking about 30 inmates here... 30... on average.
According to a 2009 Pew study, that I dug up on the Internet, incarcerating one inmate costs, on average, $29,000 a year in the U.S.
According to the county's staff report, the cost to the county to build the project is estimated at about $10 million (with another $25 million coming from a grant from the state).
I'm going to take that number -- $10 million -- and spread it out over 20 years, for $500,000 a year.
Then I'm going to add that $500,000 per year to the estimated cost of staffing and running the new women's jail facility of $1.8 million a year, for a total of $2.3 million per year, over the next 20 years, to build and operate the facility.
At that number -- $2.3 million per year, to build and operate the facility -- the cost per over-the-limit inmate, for the current average of 30 over-the-limit inmates, is over $76,000 per year... per over-the-limit inmate!
County staff states that as the county's population continues to grow, it's safe to assume that so too will the women's jail population.
At 40 over the limit, it's $57,500 per year.
And at 50, it's still $46,000... per year... per over-the-limit inmate.
Incarcerating one inmate costs, on average, $29,000 a year in the U.S.
According to the 2007 bill analysis of SB 959, "The cost of involuntary home detention electronic monitoring is about $10 per day."
$3,650 versus $76,000. (More than 20 TIMES the difference!)
Additionally, it's important, I think, to reiterate the background of SB 959, and its backers.
SB 959 was supported by our local Republican assembly member, Sam Blakeslee, it was supported by the California State Sheriff's Association, and it was signed by a Republican Governor.
The reason I want to reiterate that, is because, frankly, it makes absolutely no sense for the SLO County Sheriff's Department to NOT back mandatory home detention, 100-percent, yet they are not recommending it to your board at all.
The problem with that? Their arguments against adopting an SB 959 style program in this county make no sense at all.
What? Mandatory home detention for a handful of "low risk" women inmates, where they will be carefully monitored by skilled law enforcement professionals, is going to cause some sort of crime spike in SLO County, and therefore we need to spend millions and millions of dollars on a new, state-of-the-art jail facility?
If that's, indeed, the case, then why does the text of SB 959 read, "This (home detention) program has been very successful in Los Angeles County. The program's success has been two-fold. First, it saves the county money. The cost of home monitoring is $10 a day as compared to $70 a day for an inmate in custody. [And the] program opens up bed space for serious or violent offenders. The state and counties are all experiencing a crisis regarding limited jail [and] prison space. The home monitoring program is an effective solution to assist in alleviating overcrowding."
Again, with the embarrassment to the county... over and over and over on this issue.
I can't speak for all SLO County residents, but I am 100-percent positive that I will still sleep at night knowing that a small handful of "low risk" women inmates are being carefully monitored by skilled law enforcement professionals at home, instead of jammed into an illegal, county-owned jail.
Finally, when I last reported on this story, in September of 2010, at this link:
http://www.blogger.com/goog_37770238
... I spoke with Frank Warren, of the County's Drug and Alcohol Services Division.
I asked Mr. Warren if his department had a women's-only drug and alcohol rehab/prevention program.
He said, they do not.
I then asked him if he has heard of such programs in other municipalities, and he said, "Yes."
I said, "I can imagine how women would very much prefer that arrangement, as opposed to both men and women."
He said, "Yes. That is true. That is what my research shows."
I then asked him why the county doesn't have such a program.
He told me that it is a matter of funding.
With all of the above in mind, here's is what I recommend that your Board do on this entire issue:
1. Immediately stop plans for the current;y proposed women's jail expansion. The design of that project alone is costing the county a fortune (some $2 million to date).
2. Immediately adopt an SB 959 style, mandatory home detention program.
3. Immediately place whatever the current amount of "low risk" over-the-limit women inmates is on mandatory home detention, which will also immediately remove a massive liability issue for the county, and immediately resolve that whole, highly embarrassing, doing-the-same-thing-as-De Vaul thing.
That action will also immediately save the county some $10 million in design and construction costs, and another $1 million-plus per year to staff and operate the proposed facility.
4. Immediately take whatever amount necessary of that $10 million (and I'm sure it will just be a tiny fraction of that amount, but please make it a hefty amount), and start a women's-only drug and rehab/prevention program in SLO County.
5. Then, if the current women's jail facility (now that it's building code compliant thanks to your SB 959 adoption) is really as bad as the Sheriff's Department paints it out to be (and, it kind of sounds like it is, which is another embarrassment for the county... I mean, what are we, Midnight Express all of a sudden?), then use another $1 million, or so, of that saved $10 million-plus, to simply renovate the current facility.
In summary, please immediately stop development of the proposed women's jail expansion, immediately adopt an SB 959 style program, immediately place the "low risk," over-the-limit women inmates on mandatory home detention, and then use a fraction of the $10 million saved to start a women's-only drug and rehab/prevention program in SLO County, and to renovate the current facility.
Thank you for your time,
Ron
On Sunday, the Tribune did a HUGE front page story on this issue, plus an editorial. Yet nowhere in that article was mention of SB959. Nowhere. Plus, I’m not even sure it was even mentioned in the staff report (though this whole jail project vote had been postponed when Ron first brought SB959 to the attention of the Sups, with one of them saying he was concerned with “the growing empire of incarceration.”)
The vote on this is today. Any bets on what a “broke” county with no interest in “Empire building” will do? Right.
Dear SLO County Supervisors,
Thank you for this opportunity to provide public comment for Item A-4, the women's jail expansion project, on your 2/22/11 agenda.
I urge your board to immediately stop development of the proposed women's jail expansion, and, instead, adopt an SB 959 style program of mandatory home detention, and then use a tiny fraction of the $10 million the county will save by the abandonment of the jail expansion project, to start a women's-only drug and alcohol rehab/prevention program in SLO County.
As I first reported in 2008 at this link:
http://calcoastnews.com/2008/07/crowded-womens-jail-is-big-lawsuit-threat/
... California law allows for counties in the state to enact programs that place "low risk" inmates on mandatory home detention in order to reduce overcrowding issues in local jails.
The law, SB 959, was passed in 2007, and supported by our local Republican assembly member, Sam Blakeslee, the California State Sheriff's Association, and was signed by a Republican Governor, Governor Schwarzenegger, and is already adopted by the vast majority of counties in the state.
SLO County is not one of them.
If your board were to immediately enact an SB 959 style program of mandatory home detention, that would, in turn, immediately remedy two HUGE problems currently facing SLO County government:
1) It would immediately eliminate the massive liability issue that currently exists (and has existed for the past several years, including since SB 959's passage in 2007) at the overcrowded-and-therefore-illegal women's jail facility, by giving the county the option to place the over-the-limit, "low-risk" women inmates, on mandatory home detention, where they will be monitored by skilled, law enforcement professionals.
That move would immediately bring the county into building code compliance with the currently illegal facility.
and;
2) (And, this is really HUGE): Immediately enacting a SB 959 style program would also immediately solve one of the most awkward situations I've ever seen in my 20-plus years of covering local government.
By deliberately housing people in a non-building-code-compliant facility -- as the county continues to do with the women's jail facility, when all it would take to immediately remedy the situation is a simple vote by County Supervisors -- SLO County government is guilty of doing EXACTLY what they are accusing local rancher, Dan De Vaul of doing, yet you're going hard-core-enforcement on him.
See what I mean there? It's a very awkward, and highly embarrassing situation for the county.
For the past few years, county enforcement officials have been hammering away at Mr. De Vaul for violating building codes by, allegedly, housing people in non-building-code-compliant structures, all the while the County is housing people in non-building-code-compliant structures, when all it would take for the county to immediately remedy your illegal situation is one, quick vote, simply to do what most counties in the state are already doing.
You know, now that I see it written that way, as far as SLO County officials are concerned, I can see how reason #2 might actually be even more important than reason #1 (and reason #1 is an amazingly important reason, considering that those illegally housed inmates are ALL sitting on a jackpot right now, and they don't even know it... yet. Let's just hope that one of them doesn't trip on one of those illegal mattresses on the floor, and "injure" their neck, BEFORE you pass a SB 959 program, huh?)
That second situation is flat-out embarrassing for the county, and one quick vote on a SB 959 style program would immediately make that highly embarrassing situation disappear, AND bring the county into building code compliance, finally.
Furthermore, the numbers associated with the jail expansion project, are, again (and there's really no other way to put it), embarrassing -- nearly three times the cost (just to the county) than the national average to house an inmate.
And when compared to the cost of mandatory home detention? There's no comparison.
Here's why:
According to the (September, 2010) staff report, there's enough space at the current facility to legally house 43 inmates. However, also according to the staff report, the average population at the facility is 73 inmates, so, we're talking about 30 inmates here... 30... on average.
According to a 2009 Pew study, that I dug up on the Internet, incarcerating one inmate costs, on average, $29,000 a year in the U.S.
According to the county's staff report, the cost to the county to build the project is estimated at about $10 million (with another $25 million coming from a grant from the state).
I'm going to take that number -- $10 million -- and spread it out over 20 years, for $500,000 a year.
Then I'm going to add that $500,000 per year to the estimated cost of staffing and running the new women's jail facility of $1.8 million a year, for a total of $2.3 million per year, over the next 20 years, to build and operate the facility.
At that number -- $2.3 million per year, to build and operate the facility -- the cost per over-the-limit inmate, for the current average of 30 over-the-limit inmates, is over $76,000 per year... per over-the-limit inmate!
County staff states that as the county's population continues to grow, it's safe to assume that so too will the women's jail population.
At 40 over the limit, it's $57,500 per year.
And at 50, it's still $46,000... per year... per over-the-limit inmate.
Incarcerating one inmate costs, on average, $29,000 a year in the U.S.
According to the 2007 bill analysis of SB 959, "The cost of involuntary home detention electronic monitoring is about $10 per day."
$3,650 versus $76,000. (More than 20 TIMES the difference!)
Additionally, it's important, I think, to reiterate the background of SB 959, and its backers.
SB 959 was supported by our local Republican assembly member, Sam Blakeslee, it was supported by the California State Sheriff's Association, and it was signed by a Republican Governor.
The reason I want to reiterate that, is because, frankly, it makes absolutely no sense for the SLO County Sheriff's Department to NOT back mandatory home detention, 100-percent, yet they are not recommending it to your board at all.
The problem with that? Their arguments against adopting an SB 959 style program in this county make no sense at all.
What? Mandatory home detention for a handful of "low risk" women inmates, where they will be carefully monitored by skilled law enforcement professionals, is going to cause some sort of crime spike in SLO County, and therefore we need to spend millions and millions of dollars on a new, state-of-the-art jail facility?
If that's, indeed, the case, then why does the text of SB 959 read, "This (home detention) program has been very successful in Los Angeles County. The program's success has been two-fold. First, it saves the county money. The cost of home monitoring is $10 a day as compared to $70 a day for an inmate in custody. [And the] program opens up bed space for serious or violent offenders. The state and counties are all experiencing a crisis regarding limited jail [and] prison space. The home monitoring program is an effective solution to assist in alleviating overcrowding."
Again, with the embarrassment to the county... over and over and over on this issue.
I can't speak for all SLO County residents, but I am 100-percent positive that I will still sleep at night knowing that a small handful of "low risk" women inmates are being carefully monitored by skilled law enforcement professionals at home, instead of jammed into an illegal, county-owned jail.
Finally, when I last reported on this story, in September of 2010, at this link:
http://www.blogger.com/goog_37770238
... I spoke with Frank Warren, of the County's Drug and Alcohol Services Division.
I asked Mr. Warren if his department had a women's-only drug and alcohol rehab/prevention program.
He said, they do not.
I then asked him if he has heard of such programs in other municipalities, and he said, "Yes."
I said, "I can imagine how women would very much prefer that arrangement, as opposed to both men and women."
He said, "Yes. That is true. That is what my research shows."
I then asked him why the county doesn't have such a program.
He told me that it is a matter of funding.
With all of the above in mind, here's is what I recommend that your Board do on this entire issue:
1. Immediately stop plans for the current;y proposed women's jail expansion. The design of that project alone is costing the county a fortune (some $2 million to date).
2. Immediately adopt an SB 959 style, mandatory home detention program.
3. Immediately place whatever the current amount of "low risk" over-the-limit women inmates is on mandatory home detention, which will also immediately remove a massive liability issue for the county, and immediately resolve that whole, highly embarrassing, doing-the-same-thing-as-De Vaul thing.
That action will also immediately save the county some $10 million in design and construction costs, and another $1 million-plus per year to staff and operate the proposed facility.
4. Immediately take whatever amount necessary of that $10 million (and I'm sure it will just be a tiny fraction of that amount, but please make it a hefty amount), and start a women's-only drug and rehab/prevention program in SLO County.
5. Then, if the current women's jail facility (now that it's building code compliant thanks to your SB 959 adoption) is really as bad as the Sheriff's Department paints it out to be (and, it kind of sounds like it is, which is another embarrassment for the county... I mean, what are we, Midnight Express all of a sudden?), then use another $1 million, or so, of that saved $10 million-plus, to simply renovate the current facility.
In summary, please immediately stop development of the proposed women's jail expansion, immediately adopt an SB 959 style program, immediately place the "low risk," over-the-limit women inmates on mandatory home detention, and then use a fraction of the $10 million saved to start a women's-only drug and rehab/prevention program in SLO County, and to renovate the current facility.
Thank you for your time,
Ron
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Shut Up. NO! Sit Down. NO!
Oh, dear, Adam Hill, who’s now taking a turn as being Chairman of the BOS is apparently about to illustrate one definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. As the Tribune notes, he is asking “ . . . that people be civil and courteous and focus on the issue at hand.” He also “asked speakers to steer clear of personal attacks, rants, threats and slander, adding, ‘I’m not going to tolerate that kind of boorish behavior.”
Let me guess. He was addressing his remarks at people from Los Osos who regularly comment at BOS meetings? Well, good luck with that. As the Tribune reports, Richard Margetson, (who, I believe is actually from Morro Bay? Cayucos? not Los Osos,) once again, (as he had done with Hill’s predecessors who tried the same “civility” speech,) warned Hill to read the Brown Act. Said Margetson,” You really cannot control what’s said.” Added Los Ososian Leon Goldin, “You’re going down the road to all kinds of controversy.”
Ah, waltz me around again, Willie. Dat ol’ Brown Act. Alas. A thorn in every elected official’s side. What the bleep do we do about the bleeping public during public comment? Can’t shut ‘em up. Can’t really censor much of what they say since you’ve got to define all kinds of grey areas that defy definition. How is a strongly held opinion about some issue different from a “rant.” Besides, of course, the old standby: What I have to say is a strongly held opinion. What you have to say, is a rant!
And for the “regular Los Osos speakers,” Hill says they see themselves as victims.
Uh, yeah? I suspect some of these people will be losing their homes because of the Hideous Sewer Project. So, I think the word “victim” pretty well sums that situation up. And considering the, uh, very interesting way this whole “Process” was played then manipulated, the word “angry” certainly comes to mind. So we have a group of Los Ososians who are angry victims who, under the Brown Act, have the right to public comment.
And Hill is asking for “civility?” Let me suggest a different tack. Why not have the Supervisors, instead of sitting stone faced, actually acknowledge a speaker who gets up there and says, “We’re going to lose our home. What do we do?” and answer honestly: “We chose to ignore the promised Design/Build that might have come up with a less expensive system. What we chose and voted on instead, despite all of your “uncivil” pleadings, will likely put a good number of Los Ososians, like yourselves, out of their homes. We don’t know what you should do. We have no answers for you. It’s not our problem any more. We certainly will have staff keep trying to find whatever financial help is out there, and hope for the best. We are very sorry for your troubles, but we can do nothing for you and now it’s time for us to move on. Goodbye and good luck to you.”
Then do what was tried in the past: Set aside a small amount of time, maybe once a week (month?) specifically agendized for Los Osos Sewer Stuff, then if anyone speaks to L.O.S.S. at any other time, they can be hushed up and told to come back at the proper time for that topic.
Other than that, Brown Act still rules and defining “disruption” and ordering ejection via Sheriff will remain a politically tricky option.
Let me guess. He was addressing his remarks at people from Los Osos who regularly comment at BOS meetings? Well, good luck with that. As the Tribune reports, Richard Margetson, (who, I believe is actually from Morro Bay? Cayucos? not Los Osos,) once again, (as he had done with Hill’s predecessors who tried the same “civility” speech,) warned Hill to read the Brown Act. Said Margetson,” You really cannot control what’s said.” Added Los Ososian Leon Goldin, “You’re going down the road to all kinds of controversy.”
Ah, waltz me around again, Willie. Dat ol’ Brown Act. Alas. A thorn in every elected official’s side. What the bleep do we do about the bleeping public during public comment? Can’t shut ‘em up. Can’t really censor much of what they say since you’ve got to define all kinds of grey areas that defy definition. How is a strongly held opinion about some issue different from a “rant.” Besides, of course, the old standby: What I have to say is a strongly held opinion. What you have to say, is a rant!
And for the “regular Los Osos speakers,” Hill says they see themselves as victims.
Uh, yeah? I suspect some of these people will be losing their homes because of the Hideous Sewer Project. So, I think the word “victim” pretty well sums that situation up. And considering the, uh, very interesting way this whole “Process” was played then manipulated, the word “angry” certainly comes to mind. So we have a group of Los Ososians who are angry victims who, under the Brown Act, have the right to public comment.
And Hill is asking for “civility?” Let me suggest a different tack. Why not have the Supervisors, instead of sitting stone faced, actually acknowledge a speaker who gets up there and says, “We’re going to lose our home. What do we do?” and answer honestly: “We chose to ignore the promised Design/Build that might have come up with a less expensive system. What we chose and voted on instead, despite all of your “uncivil” pleadings, will likely put a good number of Los Ososians, like yourselves, out of their homes. We don’t know what you should do. We have no answers for you. It’s not our problem any more. We certainly will have staff keep trying to find whatever financial help is out there, and hope for the best. We are very sorry for your troubles, but we can do nothing for you and now it’s time for us to move on. Goodbye and good luck to you.”
Then do what was tried in the past: Set aside a small amount of time, maybe once a week (month?) specifically agendized for Los Osos Sewer Stuff, then if anyone speaks to L.O.S.S. at any other time, they can be hushed up and told to come back at the proper time for that topic.
Other than that, Brown Act still rules and defining “disruption” and ordering ejection via Sheriff will remain a politically tricky option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
