That is going to make the Juan P. Lopez trial very interesting. StingRay is a product of the Harris Corporation. It tricks cell phones, mimics cell towers etc.
The public deserves to know more about StingRay and Hailstorm and its capabilities.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact James Lee Han 650.207.7251
REDWOOD CITY – San Mateo County Harbor District Commissioner Sabrina Brennan continues to rack up endorsements for her campaign for reelection. Along with her previous endorsements from the Sierra Club and Coastside Democrats, she is pleased to have received the endorsements of State Senator Jerry Hill, the San Mateo County Democratic Party, and the Half Moon Bay Seafood Marketing Association.
Ms. Brennan is also pleased to have successfully represented herself in court and convinced the San Mateo County Superior Court that there were irregularities in the candidate filing process. Due to these irregularities, she won the right to amend her candidate statement not only to the satisfaction of the County but also to highlight the work of the Committee for Equity in Women’s Surfing (CEWS).
“I’m very pleased that the Honorable Judge Miram and Glenn Levy, County Counsel and attorney for the Elections Office, both agreed that there were several irregularities in the candidate filing process. I’m very honored by this victory and now have the opportunity to include the Committee for Equity in Women’s Surfing in my candidate statement.”
Ms. Brennan is running for reelection to continue her work in bringing fiscal reform, transparency, and environmental responsibility to the Harbor District. She remains the first and only out lesbian elected to a countywide office in San Mateo County.
SabrinaBrennan.com Sabrina@SabrinaBrennan.com 415.816.6111
Video July 12, 2016 BOS Meeting Agenda Item 7 2:19:00 mark SMCC John Beiers tells the Supervisors they are there to discuss how to fill the Sheriff position.
The Supervisors were to discuss which PROCESS to use to fill the vacant seat of Sheriff after our former Sheriff Greg Munks received a full medical retirement and he quit. The Grand Jury had already worked on this issue in 2008 and informed the Supervisors that they should not have appointed Carole Groom to fill Jerry Hill’s vacant seat. They even recommended the Supervisors spend $1,600,000 to pay for the election.
San Mateo County Manager’s Office Deletes Document
2008 Grand Jury Report Appointment vs. Election
The remarks made July 12, 2016 agenda item 7 by Supervisors Don Horsley, Warren Slocum and Adrienne Tissier were impossible to make with any honesty. Here is why I say that at the BOS meeting of June 2, 2015 14:20 mark I informed them of a criminal complaint I filed with the Attorney Generals Office. I reported the State of California DMV Computer had been hacked in the Deputy Juan Lopez case. Most likely by the SMCSO.
December 15, 2015 I informed the Board of Supervisors that San Mateo County Sheriff Sqt. Jason E. Peardon was a Brady Officer and I didn’t understand how he was employed as a SMCSO employee. UnderSheriff Carlos G. Bolanos would have known that.
Filed under Adrienne Tissier, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Dave Pine, David Silberman, Don Horsley, John Beiers, John Maltbie, Michelle Durand, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, Those Who Matter, Uncategorized, Warren Slocum
I have requested Warren Slocum, Don Horsley, Dave Pine, Adrienne Tissier, & Carole Grom the Supervisors of San Mateo County to place this subject on the agenda of a Board of Supervisor meeting. I’m asking for a Citizens Committee to be formed to Eliminate Prosecutorial Misconduct in our County.
Uploaded: Mon, Jul 18, 2016, 2:51 pm
While Mr. Pine argued for an appointment after seeking and interviewing candidates, and Supervisor Carole Groom said she wanted the voters to choose a new sheriff in November, supervisors Don Horsley, Adrienne Tissier and Warren Slocum displayed stunning arrogance in acting to appoint last week.
They did so under an agenda item that was unclear at best – one had to read through to the second page of a staff report to even realize that an appointment was possible at the July 12 meeting. And they did so despite warnings about a public perception that the process was rigged in the undersheriff’s favor.
That warning came from a letter read before the board, written by two local congresswomen and former county supervisors: Anna Eshoo and Jackie Speier. “For a long period of time, there have been rumors that Sheriff Munks would retire early and pave the way for the undersheriff to take this position,” they wrote. “…We believe that our mutual constituents support a decision-making process that is absent a perception of a pre-ordained outcome.”
They noted, as did Mr. Pine, that an election might be problematic, given Mr. Bolanos’ head start in campaigning – he essentially began running for the seat after Mr. Munks announced last year that he wouldn’t seek re-election in November 2018. But the congresswomen urged the board to “conduct an open and transparent search for a successor.”
But ignoring this wise advice, the board majority appointed Mr. Bolanos, who assumed the position on July 16 as Mr. Munks’ resignation took effect. In comments that might make sense only to someone who had fallen down the rabbit hole, Mr. Horsley declared his confidence in the “one candidate,” and added, “there isn’t anybody else.” Does Mr. Horsley have to be reminded that the “one candidate” earned that label only because he was an uncommonly early candidate in a 2018 race for the seat, and that there were no candidates for appointment to the current vacancy because there hadn’t been a call for candidates?
And perhaps we should mention the elephant in the board room that the supervisors failed to acknowledge last week during their praise fest for Mr. Bolanos: When in 2007 then-sheriff Munks was detained in Las Vegas in an illegal brothel, during a prostitution sting operation, his undersheriff, Mr. Bolanos, was detained right along with him. There was a loud call for the resignation of both men at the time. Neither resigned; neither would provide satisfactory explanations to the public. Apparently, supervisors Horsley, Slocum and Tissier don’t want to talk about it either.
We expected more of our elected county leaders, and we thank supervisors Pine and Groom for opposing this disappointing action. The three supervisors who successfully pushed for this rushed appointment let residents of San Mateo County down. As Rep. Eshoo noted, we deserved better.
|
||||
|
A little-noticed decision by the California Supreme Court in a lawsuit involving Martins Beach could make life more difficult for the property owner, venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, in his long-running legal battle to keep the public off his coastal land.
And it delivers the latest repudiation to San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Gerald Buchwald, whose head-scratching 2014 ruling in the suit, brought by group of surfers calling themselves Friends of Martins Beach, now essentially has been wiped from the face of the Earth.
On July 20, the state high court ordered the depublication of an April ruling by the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco in the Friends case, meaning the opinion will not appear in the appellate court’s official reports and may no longer be cited as precedent in other cases. The arcane judicial decree came without explanation.
That’s unfortunate for Khosla’s legal team, which had cited Buchwald’s ruling with fervor in a second, higher-profile lawsuit brought by the Surfrider Foundation, a case that is now awaiting a hearing before the same San Francisco appellate court. Both the Friends and Surfrider cases seek to restore public access to Martins Beach, but make different legal arguments.
The dispute over the picturesque San Mateo County beach began in 2010, when Khosla ended a decades-long practice under previous owners of allowing visitors onto the property, which is private except for the tidal zone, in exchange for a parking fee.
In his 2014 ruling, Buchwald decided that, because the ownership of Martins Beach dated back to a Mexican land grant in the 19th century, Khosla’s private property rights superceded the state’s authority to grant a right of way across his land.
“It’s a devastating blow no matter how you cut it,” Mark Massara, an attorney for Surfrider, said last week of the order to depublish. “His team relied heavily on that decision as a preemptive and overriding factor, and all of that is now legally inappropriate.”
An attorney for Khosla did not respond to a request for comment.
According to a 1993 article by the late UC Berkeley professor emeritus Stephen R. Barnett, the state high court typically depublishes an opinion when justices perceive it contains a fundamental flaw.
The appeals court opinion and the Supreme Court’s dropkick into oblivion combine to form a cascade of embarrassment for Buchwald, who plainly relished his involvement in the intricate case.
The oddest thing about Buchwald’s ruling was his still unexplained decision to grant Khosla ownership of the tidelands and submerged lands west of Martins Beach, land that generally belongs to the state, even though Khosla’s attorneys had not asked for title to the underwater realm.
The appellate court wiped away that mistake in April, upheld another part of Buchwald’s decision and reversed a third part, sending it back to Superior Court for trial. Now the whole thing must be tried again.
Friends attorney Gary Redenbacher said last week he was pleased with the decision to depublish. And he defended Buchwald. Despite their legal disagreements, he said, the judge was a gentleman.
“I wish more judges had his demeanor,” Redenbacher said in an email. “He clearly cared deeply about the issue, but as can be seen from the unanimous appellate decision, other judges did not agree with his analysis.”
Some good questions in the comment section of the article. Does this fix cause harm somewhere else?
Filed under Don Horsley
Posted by Barbara Wood
Almanac staff writer
Barbara Wood is a registered user.
Atherton City Manager George Rodericks has provided the following information in response to some of the questions that have been posted here:
Outsourcing the Police Department and Police Cost
The Town conducted an informal study a number of years ago (prior to my arrival in October 2012) that provided some broad information about outsourcing the Police Department. I believe some of that data is online. Following my arrival the outsourcing issue continued to swirl around in local politics. The Town was in the midst of labor negotiations with the APOA. Because the cloud of outsourcing continued to be discussed in the community and by members of the Council, the Town was having difficulty attracting and retaining police officers. I put the issue before the Council for a decision on whether or not the Town wanted to formally pursue outsourcing of the Police Department. The issue continued to weigh heavily on negotiations and the Town and APOA could easily have reached a stalemate if the issue wasn’t addressed. The 5-0 vote by the Council decided that outsourcing was not an option they wanted to pursue.
This was a knowing decision. It was a decision despite the clear and public acknowledgement that the Town would save money by outsourcing the Police Department. The issue boiled down to service level, local control, and policing model. It was estimated that outsourcing of the Police Department would save the Town approximately 30% assuming the current staffing and deployment levels are maintained. The cost of police services in Atherton is $6,781,283. The total operations budget for the Town is $12,149,639. This represents 55.8% of the Town’s total operational budget – excluding Capital Projects. The Town has 40 full-time employees (not including contract Building, Planning, Engineering, and Public Works staff). The Police Department represents 29 of these staff or 72.5% of the total Town staff. This is a per-capita cost (7,160 residents) of $947. For some comparisons as percent of budget – small towns:
Town of Woodside (Contract) – $1,737,925/$6,408,768 = 27% = per capita = $317.08
Town of Portola Valley (Contract) – $692,100/$4,499,337 = 15% = per capita = $153.19
Town of Tiburon (Town PD) – $3,278,958/$10,838,457 = 30% = per capita = $357.22
City of Belvedere (City PD) – $1,703,434/$4,599,601 = 37% = per capita = $802.75
Town of Atherton (Town PD) – $6,781,283/$12,149,639 = 56% = per capita = $947
Town of Colma (Town PD) – $5,370,490/$13,627,060 = 39% = per capita = $3,599.52
The differences, per capita, even under the contract model is indicative of the service levels, local control and policing models. Some agencies, like Belvedere maintain their own police force even though they too would clearly save significant funds by outsourcing, but outsourcing was not something the community supported for the police services. Issues of rotating officers (-), busting of cars out of Town in support of more regional safety needs (-), and the ability to manage the police locally (+), and the ability to have a higher, locally controlled deployment model (+) factored into their decision making. It essentially boils down to an affluent community desiring local control over its local policing needs. That’s the case in Atherton.
Basic secured property tax revenues to the Town total $7,222,365. Police services are 94% of that cost. This is all publicly available information for comparison purposes. The Town is very transparent.
Number of Fire Stations in Atherton
There is one fire station in Atherton – Station No. 3. This station is manned by 3 firefighters. One of the 3 is a paramedic. However, the Town is also served by Station No. 4 (Menlo Park) and Station No. 1 (Menlo Park). The District operates on the “closest station” network deployment model so the closest station and the closest vehicle regardless of station responds to issues in Atherton.
Detaching from the Fire District
The Town is not seeking to withdraw from the Fire District. The Fire District receives more than $13 million a year from Atherton taxpayers for the provision of basic fire and emergency response. That’s more than the entire operating budget for the Town itself. The Town is asking the following questions:
– Has the Town’s property value’s increased to the point that the funds received by the Fire District via property taxes far exceed the cost to provide fire services to the community?
– If so, what can be done about it?
– Should something be done about it?
– What options do the taxpayers have?
We have been able to address the issue with the County Library Tax and to a degree, have more control as we’re part of a JPA. But the District is independent of the Town. The Town has raised this issue with the Fire District (beginning in 2013/14). We asked:
– How much does the district receive on average annually in property tax revenue from Atherton residents?
– How much does the district expend on fire services (inclusive of any distributed proportionate share of overhead) within Atherton boundaries?
– If there a surplus between these two numbers, where does the surplus go? Is the surplus expended on paying down long-term liabilities? Is the surplus expended on the purchase of capital infrastructure.
– If there is not a surplus, how does the district make up the difference?
The response was: “We don’t track information that way.” So, we’ve been trying to engage the District in this conversation ever since. Ultimately, the Town (and residents) have the ability to detach from the Fire District and provide fire services on their own (contract, their own department, etc.). Doing so would re-align the property taxes to the Town instead of the District (with caveats via a LAFCO process). That’s only one option and a remote one. There are many others, but first, there needs to be an open and transparent conversation with the Fire District about the issue with the facts at hand. At the end of the day, the answer may be similar to the Police Services answer – yes, we pay more for fire services because we enjoy a higher quality of service delivery and a degree of local control. Or the answer may be, wow, that’s a lot more than we want to pay for fire services, District, what can you do to address this issue? Redistribute property taxes amongst the other taxing agencies within the Tax Rate areas? Upgrade Station No. 3? Spend more locally on fire infrastructure? Neither of these answers involve the Town detaching from the Fire District. Neither of these answers involve the District providing funds to the Town.
To be clear, the Town is not pursuing this issue on the basis that we can get fire services cheaper or that we need funding from the Fire District for our own operations. We do not. Those are farthest from the truth. We are a well-managed Town with a fully balanced budget – with a surplus. We presently have nearly a 100% reserve. Our OPEB liability is at a 90% funded level. Our CalPERS long-term liability is well under control. We are not dependent on ERAF or the Town’s Capital Infrastructure Parcel Tax for basic operations – we use it for Capital Projects. For Fiscal Year 2016/17 we have operational revenues over expenditures of $1,285,322 or 10.5%. This is not a revenue alternative issue for the Town. It is purely an equity issue for our residents. We are simply asking the questions and want to have the conversation.
The Town Cannot Withdraw from the District
Yes, the Town can withdraw via a detachment process with LAFCO. The process is a legal LAFCO process that begins with a local affected agency resolution requesting review. Part of the process involves the Town identifying a viable alternative service delivery model. The Town (and its residents) have the ability via detachment from the District to provide fire services to the community. It is within the Town’s purview under the law for local police powers – health, safety, and welfare – general police powers. The Fire District has no such authority or ability with police services. That responsibility for service delivery rests entirely with the Town.
Can the Town use a dual model for Police/Fire as a solution?
Yes. If the Town were to pursue detachment and providing services locally were the option selected, it could opt to have a dual police/fire model similar to Rohnert Park and other communities where officers rotate via one department to police and fire.
Why can’t the Town use the existing firehouse? Can a private company fill the need?
If the Town were to pursue a detachment model existing assets would be distributed and amortized via a LAFCO process. The Town and the District would have to agree on the cost of existing infrastructure should the Town assume it and the Town would have to pay for that infrastructure. This can be done in any number of ways, to include an amortization period whereby the District continues to receive a share of the property tax revenue for fire services and the Town receives the difference. Once the period ends, the Town collects all of the tax for local fire services. Since the tax is associated with the provision of fire services, similar to the library property tax, there is likely to be a restriction on the funds such that they can only be used for fire services. In that case, if the cost for fire services is less than the tax collected, the Town could opt to realign/redistribute the tax amongst the other taxing entities in each affected Tax Rate Area. In doing so, all agencies (Fire, School, Mosquito, Sewer, College, Town, etc.) would receive a proportional share of the redistributed tax.
A private service could be considered, but frankly, I am not sure of the law in California with respect to the provision of service by private sector staffing. There are private medical services, but private sworn fire services – unlikely in California, but worth looking at if that bridge is where we end up.
Town in dire fiscal straights
To be clear, the Town is not pursuing this issue on the basis that we can get fire services cheaper or that we need funding from the Fire District for our own operations. We do not. Those are farthest from the truth. We are a well-managed Town with a fully balanced budget – with a surplus. We presently have nearly a 100% reserve. Our OPEB liability is at a 90% funded level. Our CalPERS long-term liability is well under control. We are not dependent on ERAF or the Town’s Capital Infrastructure Parcel Tax for basic operations – we use it for Capital Projects. For Fiscal Year 2016/17 we have operational revenues over expenditures of $1,285,322 or 10.5%. This is not a revenue alternative issue for the Town. It is purely an equity issue for our residents. We are simply asking the questions and want to have the conversation.
The Parcel Tax is used for capital infrastructure. Residents contribute $1.8m per year to the Town via the Tax and the Town uses the bulk of it (80%) for streets, roads, and drainage each year.
Police Department Salaries
Atherton Police Officers are not paid the highest. Annually, the Town compares police agency salaries/benefits to surrounding agencies – San Mateo County, Brisbane, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Hillsborough, San Bruno, Belmont, Redwood City, Menlo Park, and Los Altos. Atherton Police Officers are paid at below average levels. Of these 10 agencies, 8 are paying their officers higher than Atherton. For Atherton Sergeants, of these 10 agencies, 7 are paying their Sergeants higher than Atherton. For Atherton Dispatchers, of these 10 agencies, 8 are paying their dispatchers higher than Atherton. It is hoped that through currently ongoing labor negotiations, we can at least bring our staff up to the average for agencies that are the Town’s competition for recruitment and retention.
Using Fire Tax Revenue for the Civic Center
The Town asked the District if they would be interested in contributing to the Town’s Emergency Operations Center in its new facility or if they would be interested in creating a shared space for staging of an emergency medical response vehicle in the Civic Center. The District advised they were not interested and asked the Town if they were asking the same of the Mosquito Abatement District and local schools. The District then asserted that the Town could not use the fire funds because they were taxes and the ballot measure prevent such. The Town advised that if the Town were to receive a grant of funds from an outside entity, this did not violate the ballot measure since it takes the form of grants. Most all grants from any agency – federal, state, local, county, etc. are all derived at their base from taxes of some sort so the assertion is baseless and argumentative..
Further, if the Town were to detach (a multi-year process – long after the Civic Center completes) the Town would likely not be allowed use fire tax funds for Town basic capital infrastructure – similar to using library tax funds – these funds can only be used on library services/infrastructure. The Town’s Civic Center Project will get accomplished whether the Town is a member of the Fire District or whether the District addresses the taxing issue or not. The motivation for this issue is not the Town’s Civic Center.
Filed under Atherton Police Department
April 13, 2015 From the moment they got the call from Human Resources that SMCSO Andy Mar pulled his firearm and aimed it at a San Mateo County Employee Custodian Jose Verdusco. The Sheriff’s Office was committed to not arrest and charge one of its own.
The San Mateo County Sheriff Office should not have investigated this case, they should have referred it to outside agency. Here is why, when when Sheriff Sgt. went to courtroom 7B to find and speak to Deputy Andy Mar, Deputy Mar said “I know why you are here.” “I did it.” The Sgt. forcefully told him to shut up, to protect him. The Sgt. did not take his belt and firearm away at that moment, he was not placed under arrest, he was not sent home. This is a man who just admitted he committed a crime.
The Sheriff’s Office behavior allowed Deputy Andy Mar to go to the cafeteria to confront Jose Verdusco a second time. Witness Intimidation. Eye contact with hand on firearm.
UnderSheriff Carlos G. Bolanos has phone conversation with DDA Karen Guidotti where he makes disparaging remarks about the Victim Jose Verdusco.
This case was always a FELONY case. That is where THOSE WHO MATTER come into play. District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe has the authority to charge the case whatever he wants to and he did in this case, he UNDERCHARGED it and left out some pretty important facts that the jury never heard about.
Mission Accomplished Sheriff Deputy protected.
Note Deputy Andy Mar never ran for the office of Sheriff.
San Mateo County News 