3% of LASD complaints lead to formal investigations

File this in the "we already figured that" file. This is what happens when you have a lower profile than the LAPD (and "fly under the radar") and no direct city council control or citizen watchdogs over an agency. LASD provides services in many small cities like Lakewood whose city councils rarely question LASD actions, unlike the LA City Council which along with the ACLU and a host of other organizations is watching LAPD like a hawk.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-sheriff17may17,1,4409673.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california

From the Los Angeles Times
Study faults some deputy probes
L.A. County sheriff's response to complaints is found to be improved but inconsistent overall.

By Stuart Pfeifer
Times Staff Writer

May 17, 2007

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has improved the way it investigates allegations of deputy misconduct, but it often reduces discipline without explanation, according to a report released Wednesday.

Merrick Bobb, an attorney hired by the Board of Supervisors to review the Sheriff's Department, studied hundreds of misconduct investigations initiated in 2005. He found that the department has made "great strides" since the early 1990s in investigating public complaints about deputies' behavior.

In most cases, the department investigates complaints thoroughly and objectively, Bobb found. He said investigations were inadequate in about one in five cases, faulting sheriff's managers in those cases for failing to interview all pertinent witnesses, writing biased or incomplete reports or improperly documenting investigations.

"The LASD's commitment to the fair investigation of citizens' complaints has strengthened considerably," wrote Bobb, who was hired in 1993 to monitor the department's reform efforts following allegations of excessive force and concern about the citizen complaint process.

The department handles complaints about deputies differently from the Los Angeles Police Department. Pursuant to a consent decree, the LAPD must formally investigate all complaints through its internal affairs unit. The Sheriff's Department handles complaints from the public informally at the station to which the deputy is assigned. Sheriff's station supervisors can request formal internal affairs investigations of citizens' complaints. Bobb found that just 3% of complaints lead to formal investigations.

The report also concluded that the department too often agrees to reduce discipline imposed on deputies who violate department policies ranging from the use of force during arrests to unsafe driving of patrol cars and off-duty incidents, such as drunk driving.

In one instance, a deputy received a three-day suspension for making racially insensitive comments in a telephone conversation with a member of the public and for telling the caller, "I don't have time for this," before hanging up. After the deputy complained about his punishment, a captain put the suspension in abeyance, meaning it would be imposed only if the deputy committed a new offense.

"In our view, the captain fumbled and the deputy recovered the ball and went on to score a touchdown," Bobb wrote in his report.

Sheriff Lee Baca said he believes holding discipline in abeyance provides incentive for deputies to reform.

"Settlement agreements give management a stronger capacity [to prevent] future misconduct," Baca said. "They've agreed not to transgress again."

The department reduced discipline in 84% of the cases in which a suspension was imposed, the report said.

Most often, the discipline was reduced after deputies complained to their captains that they thought their punishment was excessive, the report said.

"The department must stop letting the grievance process be a one-way ticket to a reduced discipline," Bobb wrote. The report said it appears the department "plea bargains" discipline cases as a matter of routine.

Bobb and his staff studied investigations of deputies assigned to six sheriff's stations: Century, Compton, Lakewood, Palmdale, Pico Rivera and Santa Clarita.

In one instance, a deputy had accumulated 11 complaints of discourteous conduct in the past three years, including six in which his conduct was faulted by supervisors. Despite this record, the deputy was not subjected to a broad investigation.

Time to break some promises..just like politicians do with taxpayers

Controller: State faces up to $47 billion bill on health benefits

Monday, May 7, 2007

California may have to come up with an extra $47.9 billion over the next 30 years to cover health and dental benefits for its retirees and current state employees, Controller John Chiang said Monday.

But Chiang said the state could cut that bill to about $31.3 billion if it dropped its pay-as-you-go approach, invested about $1 billion a year to help cover future retiree health costs and used the earnings to ease the impact on the state budget.

"Our actuarial report shows that, annually, if we continue on the pay-as-you-go basis, we will accrue a liability of $3.59 billion a year," Chiang said in remarks prepared for a speech to the Sacramento Press Club. "But if we fully pre-fund and put that money into a trust fund, we'll only need $2.59 billion a year (from the budget) to cover this liability."

The state has been paying less than $1.4 billion a year for health benefits, raising the specter of a large unfunded liability in the future, Chiang said.

An order issued by the federal government in 2004 requires states to spell out how much they'll have to pay in non-pension retirement benefits.

Chiang said he was releasing his findings nearly two years before the federal deadline to give the state time to come up with a "responsible plan to honor our promises to state employees and protect future budgets."

"We cannot continue to defer these costs to the next generation of Californians," he added.

The pre-funding approach he recommends is the same one used by the state to pay pensions. He also said the state should look for ways to control its health-care costs.

State Finance Director Mike Genest said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed a 12-member commission last year to propose ways to deal with state public pensions and retiree health benefits.

"As the governor has said, we have to find the best way to meet these obligations without harming other government programs and taxpayers or handing the problem off to future generations," Genest said.

State mandates relating to clean storm water and pollution-prevention

Court Ruling to Help County, Cities Fund Clean Storm Water Programs, CPR Says
May 15, 2007

Decision Means Better, More Effective Pollution-Prevention Efforts at Local Level; Judge Says Statute Preventing Communities from Receiving State Aid for ‘Unfunded Mandates’ is Unconstitutional

SIGNAL HILL, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--A recent decision by the California Court of Appeals in Los Angeles will bring funding to local communities to help pay for State mandates relating to clean storm water and pollution-prevention measures. The ruling will help usher an array of clean storm water and anti-pollution programs in communities throughout the region.

Stating that “a statute cannot trump the constitution,” the California Court of Appeals in Los Angeles Thursday ruled that a statute preventing municipalities from obtaining state funding for new or more expensive programs mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board, or regional water quality control boards, is unconstitutional.

The unanimous opinion by the Court of Appeals affirmed a May 2005 ruling by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Victoria Chaney holding that Government Code Section 17516 conflicted with the California Constitution.

Article XIIIB, section 6 of the constitution provides that whenever the Legislature or a state agency “mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government,” the state must provide a “subvention” of state funds to reimburse the local government “for the costs of the program or increased level of service.” This provision was added to the California constitution by voter initiative in 1979.

The Government Code section declared unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals exempted from eligibility for state reimbursement various orders or regulations issued by the State Water Board or regional boards. As a result, local governments had been prevented from arguing to the Commission on State Mandates, which determines whether state funding is appropriate, that the cost of complying with these orders or regulations was recoverable as an “unfunded state mandate.”

In recent years, the State and regional water boards have imposed a number of new requirements on counties and cities across the state, including requirements relating to municipal storm water permits and other requirements addressing pollutants in storm water. The cost of these requirements is in the billions of dollars, yet relatively little state bond funding has been available.

As a result, the County of Los Angeles and 22 cities sued the Commission on State Mandates, arguing that the Government Code section conflicted with the constitutional provision allowing for state funding. Judge Chaney agreed, and the Commission appealed her ruling to the Court of Appeals.

The ruling by the Court of Appeals means that local governments will now be able to seek reimbursement for the cost of programs required by the State Water Board or the regional boards.

“It’s a victory for taxpayers, and a victory for the environment,” said Larry Forester, who heads the Coalition for Practical Regulation, a membership organization committed to supporting the environment through State-funded programs. “Communities will not be forced to choose between funding clean water programs and essential services like police and fire. Better still, this ruling will greatly improve the environment because cities will be able to adopt more cost-effective pollution prevention programs.”

Copies of complete Court ruling, excerpts and details are available on request. For story assistance call Jeff Hobbs, City of Bellflower, at (562) 804-1424 ext. 2278.

'Servants' become the masters

What an apt title. The drum keeps beating but the politicians are not hearing, just like with everything else in America. The politicians only serve themselves, public employees, lobbyists (and the interest groups that hire them) and the taxpayers. In that order, with taxpayers outnumbering the former but way down the list in terms of influence. Why? Because taxpayers are lame (less than half vote) and never vote anyone out of office (usually as there is no one else any better to vote in)

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/columns/article_1691947.php

May 13, 2007
'Servants' become the masters
STEVEN GREENHUT
Sr. editorial writer and columnist
The Orange County Register
sgreenhut@ocregister.com

As the presidential race gets under way, we're once again hearing the Democratic candidates ratchet up their rhetoric about the nation's great divisions between rich and poor, between those with health insurance and those without it, and between those with jobs and those on the unemployment line. I thought most people got tired of John Edwards' "two Americas" shtick during his campaign in 2004, but he is again championing this theme as he seeks the 2008 nomination.

I'll give the millionaire former senator this much: There are indeed two Americas, although the divide isn't the one that he repeatedly details.

Since the mid-1990s, American policy makers have been involved in a massive wealth transfer from the private sector to the public sector. To win the support of the powerful public-sector unions, officials at the federal, state and local levels have granted to government workers lavish retirement benefits that dwarf those of non-government workers. Here's the real divide: Between "public servants," who will be retired in their early 50s and living it up by the golf course, and private-sector workers who will be laboring until they drop over – not only to pay the bills, but to pay the higher taxes that surely will be needed to sustain the underfunded pensions promised to their government counterparts.

"As the first wave of 79 million baby boomers heads to retirement, the nation is dividing into two classes of workers: those who have government benefits and those who don't," USA Today reported Feb. 21. "The gap is accelerating in every way – pensions, medical benefits, retirement ages. Retired government workers are twice as likely to get a pension as their counterparts in the private sector, and the typical benefit is far more generous."

The newspaper quotes the Congressional Research Service, which finds that the typical government retirement is well over twice that of the typical private-sector retirement.

Government workers often also make more in salary. There are dueling statistics on public-sector vs. private-sector salaries, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics gives public employees (over the entire range of job categories) a 25-percent premium. Looking solely at federal workers, the Cato Institute explains that those in the government sector earn 56 percentmore in salary alone than those in the private sector. Public sector employees also have more days off, shorter work days, better health care benefits and so forth.

The benefit boom started when the stock market bubble inflated in the late 1990s, with unions claiming that the new level of investment returns meant higher pensions would be covered by pension fund investment gains and involve no risk to taxpayers. But what goes up must someday come down. After 9/11 happened, government unions – especially for police and fire – exploited that tragedy to increase their retirement dollars. No one could say no to potential "heroes." Meanwhile, union-dominated retirement boards continue to push for the most aggressive investments to earn the highest-possible returns. Why not? If they pan out, union members get even more benefits. If they don't, the taxpayers are stuck paying the difference.

The day of reckoning keeps getting closer.

State Controller John Chiang announced last week that California needs to start setting aside at least $2.2 billion a year to address the liability for its retiring workers; the total deficit ranges in estimates from about $48 billion to $70 billion. The state's pension deficit is at least $50 billion.

In Orange County, the public employee pension tab tops $2 billion – something made far worse after the Board of Supervisors in 2004 passed a retroactive pension spike that allows county workers to retire with a guaranteed pension equaling 81 percent of their pay after 30 years of service. Public safety workers in Orange County can retire with 100 percent of their final pay at age 53.

At these rates, pension liabilities are mounting. Some states' pension plans are on the skids and will soon require a bailout. Private pensions are in similar trouble, which is why corporate America is slashing benefits. But no such reductions have a chance in the public sector, where it's "only" taxpayer money that's at stake, and officials would rather pawn off problems to the future than face the wrath of the unions. Unlike companies, bureaucracies never go out of business, and voters rarely pay attention to these boring issues.

So it's two Americas, with the haves being those who worked in the government, and the have-nots being everybody else.

But don't worry.

A taxpayer-funded think tank at a taxpayer-funded university has released new research sponsored by a taxpayer-funded retirement system "proving" that these outsized pensions are not a problem for the state, but a benefit. As the Sacramento Business Journal reported, "The Applied Research Center at California State University, Sacramento, analyzed the impact of benefit payments to 674,000 retirees and their beneficiaries. Dr. Robert Fountain, research center director, and Dr. Robert Waste determined that the $13.8 billion in retirement benefits paid in 2006 created a $7.3 billion 'ripple effect,' for a total $21.1 billion impact." The CEO of the state retirement system reiterated the point of the study: "Retiree pension payments may seem like they are liabilities on the books of government, but, in fact, they represent billions and billions of dollars that contribute to the strength of state and local governments."

I don't know what's scarier, that professors (including one with the appropriate last name, "Waste") would engage in such pointless research or that the person in charge of the state's retirement system, with billions of dollars at its disposal, has such little economic understanding.

The argument that such liabilities are really benefits is known to economists as the "broken window fallacy." Author Henry Hazlitt told the famous fictional story, whereby a hoodlum throws a brick through a shop window. The store owner is upset, but a crowd gathers around the smashed window and starts to talk about the good things that will come from the vandalism. The money spent to fix the window will benefit a glazier, and the money the glazier gets will benefit his grocer and on and on. "The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor," Hazlitt explained.

But ... the crowd forgets that the shopkeeper is out the money, and he would have spent it at, say, the tailor's, and the tailor would have spent it somewhere else. The broken window did not create wealth but unfairly shifted it.

Likewise, elected officials, at the behest of the unions, have been diverting billions of dollars from taxpayers and giving those dollars to union members. Certainly, one can study the effect of the money spent by those retirees. I'm sure real estate agents at Lake Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, car dealerships and the people who sell those 4-by-4 sand toys will enjoy the benefits of dollars lavished on retired government workers.

Yes, if a mugger takes the money in my wallet, there will be a boon to the liquor store where he spends it. But then I'll be out the cash, which I won't be able to spend at the local restaurant.

There simply is not enough money to pay for all the promises made to government unions and their members. As the liabilities mount, officials will be forced either to slash benefits, borrow money or raise taxes. The unions will never allow the first course of action to happen, so we're stuck with the latter two options – both of which will mean more wealth transfers from one America to the other, regardless of how some government economists try to spin it.

Contact the writer: 714-796-7823 or sgreenhut@ocregister.com

Unopposed board raised $8 million....Does this surprise anyone?

Really who would have expected this? The goal of most local politicos is to make stuff as hard to find as possible to keep the public in the dark but still have some degree of "plausible deniability". "Oh you want to know what we are up to...go look thru some musty old records in the basement" Good luck trying to find anything or if you do, connecting it to us. All this "stuff" needs to be on the internet. The state legislature needs to prevent this type of activity by local politicians (at City an County level) by requiring that ALL local agencies put all their "back room dealings" on the internet so we can all Google them and see what they are up to. The feds are starting to see that transparency and ease of access for the public is necessary and quite frankly, our right as taxpayers. See The Federal Funding Accountability And Transparency Act Of 2006

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-supes13may13,0,2568564.story?coll=la-home-center

Unopposed board raised $8 million
A Times database looks at more than 15,000 contributions to L.A. County supervisors.

By Jack Leonard and Doug Smith, Times Staff Writers

May 13, 2007

It has been more than a decade since any of Los Angeles County's five supervisors faced a serious election contest, but that hasn't curbed their appetite for campaign cash.

A Times analysis of political donations shows that supervisors have raised more than $8 million since 1998, tapping businesses, labor unions and individuals who have stakes in decisions made by the nation's largest county government.

The supervisors have used their political war chests to scare off potential opponents, donate to favorite political causes and spend on personal campaign items, including a gun permit in one case and UCLA sports tickets in another.

Until now, the scope of these political donations was almost impossible to gauge. Unlike other local governments — including the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach — the county has never made such contributions accessible in a searchable online database.

But over the last four months, The Times has built a database of more than 15,000 contributions and, starting today, it is available at latimes.com. A review of the donations provides the most comprehensive look yet at who has given money to the supervisors since voters approved strict limits on campaign contributions in 1996.

• Developers dominate the list of the most generous donors, with Newhall Land & Farming Co. on top. The company, along with its executives and their relatives, gave about $65,000. The supervisors have approved the company's plans to build a 20,885-home development at Newhall Ranch, despite opposition from environmentalists.

• Other top contributors include companies that have been awarded contracts to provide services to the county. For example, Premier Building Maintenance and its officers have given $39,700. Last year, the county paid Premier $5 million for janitorial services. A company executive said the firm won its contracts in open and fair bidding.

• Supervisors have held their wallets open even when they faced no opposition. In 2000, when their terms were about to expire, Supervisors Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, Don Knabe and Mike Antonovich ran unopposed on the ballot yet amassed as a group more than $1.4 million.

• In 1998, more than a year after voters approved limits on the amount donors can give to the supervisors, Knabe, who was newly elected, used a legal loophole to raise money in excess of those limits to pay election debts. He collected 40 donations exceeding the $1,000 limit per donor, raising nearly $120,000.

Nothing prohibits contractors and developers with projects pending before the county board from giving money to a supervisor's campaign. And supervisors defend their practice of accepting such donations, saying they need the money to ensure reelection.

They insist that they do not allow campaign cash to influence their government decisions and point to instances when they have voted against contributors.

"Any time you get to a place where you feel because you get $1,000 you have to vote for their issue, you're in trouble," Burke said.

Antonovich said: "People who contribute are buying my philosophy. I'm not buying theirs."

Campaign reform advocates expressed skepticism, however, noting that the largest donors gave to all five supervisors, whose political views span a broad spectrum. Burke, Zev Yaroslavsky and Gloria Molina are Democrats; Knabe and Antonovich are Republicans.

Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause, said elected officials should be barred from voting on issues that would probably benefit contributors.

She cited rules that prohibit Metropolitan Transportation Authority board members — who include all five supervisors — from accepting more than $10 from companies that seek contracts from the transit agency.

"It creates a perception that people who make large donations get additional access to our elected officials," Feng said. "Sometimes, that impression can translate into real influence."

Feng also criticized county leaders for failing to move sooner to offer a more accessible way to see who contributes to supervisors. The county registrar-recorder's office posts printed copies of campaign finance reports on its website, but they are difficult to view and do not allow the public to easily search for donors.

The state and some local government agencies provide better online tools for the public. The secretary of state's office launched its Web database for candidates running for state office in 2000. The city of Los Angeles' online database includes donations since 1998, when Ethics Commission workers started computerizing contributions to candidates for city offices.

County Registrar-Recorder Conny McCormack said efforts to use the same software the city uses were stalled until recently by legal and technology concerns. The county is preparing to launch its own online database this summer.

The database will initially include contributions made since January to candidates for supervisor, sheriff, district attorney and assessor. McCormack said the county would not add older contributions, saying staff shortages and the county's rules on soliciting bids for outsourced work would make the task too difficult.

"There's no legal requirement for us to go back," she said. "It would be a huge amount of work."

The Times spent $6,300 to hire a private company to computerize the supervisors' campaign finance records back to 1998. The newspaper then built its own database, which includes monetary and nonmonetary contributions, refunds and loans.

A review of the data shows that Knabe, Antonovich and Yaroslavsky each raised more than $2 million over the last nine years. Burke collected $1.4 million. Molina — who makes little secret of her distaste for fundraising — lagged well behind with $527,589.

In 1996, county voters approved a ballot measure that in most cases restricts donations to campaign accounts to $1,000 per donor per election cycle. Until then, the county had no limits, and some unions and businesses pumped tens of thousands of dollars into individual campaigns.

A review of the donations shows that the limits have eliminated such large one-time donations and reduced the influence individual donors can exert on an election.

"I think it's totally changed the dynamic of political campaigns and the appearance of favoritism completely," said Yaroslavsky, who wrote the campaign reform measure.

In 1998, Knabe exceeded the limits by accepting donations of as much as $5,000 to pay off expenses from his 1996 election, which took place before the rules took effect. His spokesman said he raised the money only after receiving a memo from county lawyers saying it was legal to do so.

Among his top donors were investors who lease land from the county in Marina del Rey and developers, such as Newhall Land, that need county approval for their projects.

Interest groups continue to dominate the top donors to supervisors, despite the 1996 reforms. The $1,000 limit does not stop a company, its executives and employees and their relatives from each giving the maximum allowed. In addition, donors can contribute not only to supervisors' campaign committees but also to legal defense and officeholder accounts that all five supervisors keep for official business expenses.

Newhall Land, its executives and their relatives have provided steady support to most of the supervisors. The developer gave most generously in 1999 and 2003, coinciding with the two votes the board took in approving the company's sprawling Newhall Ranch development.

"If they don't vote for the projects, they won't continue to get the contributions," said Lynne Plambeck, an environmentalist who opposes the Newhall project.

Yaroslavsky voted against the project in 2003, the only supervisor to do so. The company has not donated to him since.

Newhall spokeswoman Marlee Lauffer said the developer does not contribute in order to gain favor for its own projects.

"We've … given to people who we think better the quality of life in Los Angeles County," she said.

Because no supervisor has faced a run-off election in more than a decade, they are left with millions of dollars that campaign rules say cannot be used in future elections. Supervisors donate most of it to charities, civic groups and ballot measures.

But other expenditures stand out. In 1998, Antonovich used contributions to pay the Sheriff's Department $109 for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Antonovich, a retired reserve police officer, said he sought the permit in response to threats on his life.

"My personal protection is connected to my performance of my duties as an elected official," he said.

State law allows expenditures that are directly related to a political, legislative or governmental purpose.

Yaroslavsky, a Bruins fan who likes to quote legendary basketball coach John Wooden, spent thousands of dollars on UCLA football and basketball tickets.

In response to questions about the tickets, Yaroslavsky provided a written statement, saying he took guests "whose responsibilities overlap with mine as an elected official or who have roles in the communities I represent that overlap with my responsibilities as an elected official."

*

jack.leonard@latimes.com

doug.smith@latimes.com

*

Political donations

A review of financial contributions to Los Angeles County's five supervisors shows that they have raised more than $8 million since 1998, even though none has faced a serious election challenge in a decade.

Mike Antonovich: $2,164,576

Zev Yaroslavsky: 2,040,911

Don Knabe: 2,014,349

Yvonne Brathwaite Burke: 1,413,036

Gloria Molina: 527,589

TOTAL: $8,160,461

--

Named below are a few of the most generous contributors, many of whom do business with the county. The amounts can include contributions made by the company, its executives and employees and their relatives.

Newhall Land & Farming Co. (developer): $65,600

Del Rey Shores (leaseholder of county land in Marina del Rey): $49,750

Premier Building Maintenance (county janitorial services contractor): $39,700

Tarzana Treatment Center (county contractor and drug and alcohol treatment provider): $35,800

B. Butler Enterprises/Scapular House/Canon Human Services Centers (county contractor and drug and alcohol treatment provider): $34,900

California Commerce Casino (casino): $34,075

American Medical Response (county contractor and ambulance services provider): $32,800

Watson Land Co. (developer): $29,350

Louis Weider (former leaseholder of county land in Marina del Rey): $26,375

Tejon Ranch Co. (developer): $21,687

San Jacinto (Riverside) CA bans safe and sane fireworks

Reporter's notebook

By CHARLES HAND/The Valley Chronicle
Agustin Gutierrez

http://www.thevalleychronicle.com/articles/2007/05/11/news/07nnotebook.txt

Forbidding fireworks

A fix to a hole in the law prohibiting fireworks in San Jacinto has been introduced.

Though state law prohibits some fireworks, officers have found devices smaller than those covered by the law, said Police Chief Kevin Vest.

Riverside County adopted a more comprehensive ban last year, and the proposed city law is based on that.

At the moment, the only city law prohibiting the use of fireworks applies only in city parks, Vest said.

Vest said the major reasons for banning the possession, use, or storage of fireworks in the city are that 45 percent of the injuries from fireworks are sustained by those younger than 15, that they can be dismantled to make larger explosive devices, and that the area has repeatedly seen extreme fire danger and extended fire seasons.

People also sometimes fail to understand the danger of large explosions from the storage of small fireworks in quantity, Vest said.

Permanent Injunction Placed On Firefox Enterprises (fireworks co.)

NEWS from CPSC
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Office of Information and Public Affairs
Washington, DC 20207

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 4, 2007
Release #07-181

CPSC Hotline: (800) 638-2772
CPSC Media Contact: Scott Wolfson, (301) 504-7051

CPSC Wins Major Court Victory Upholding Authority to Protect Consumers
From Illegal Sales of Firework Components
Permanent Injunction Placed On Firefox Enterprises

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A federal court affirmed that the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has the authority to stop the sale of
chemicals and components used to make illegal, dangerous fireworks. This
is a major victory in CPSC's continuing effort to protect consumers from
injury and death caused by illegal explosives.

On December 6, 2006, the Honorable B. Lynn Winmill, Chief U.S. District
Judge for the District of Idaho, granted summary judgment in favor of
the government's claim that Firefox Enterprises Inc., of Pocatello,
Idaho, sold chemicals and components to consumers that were used to
manufacture illegal fireworks.

On April 30, 2007, Judge Winmill entered a permanent injunction against
Firefox and its owners, prohibiting them from selling certain chemicals
and components used in illegal fireworks. The Judge also imposed
shipping and strict record keeping requirements on the defendants and
authorized the CPSC to make surprise inspections of Firefox's
facilities.

"This court ruling is a victory for consumer safety," said CPSC's Acting
Chairman Nancy Nord. "There are far too many injuries and deaths from
the manufacture and use of illegal fireworks. By taking strong action
against individuals and companies that sell chemicals and components to
make these dangerous devices, CPSC can stop illegal fireworks from being
made and keep consumers safe."

An investigation by CPSC found that between November 1999 and May 2005,
Firefox, an Internet retailer, was selling and shipping in hundreds of
separate transactions, chemicals, tubes, end caps and fuses. These
chemicals and components when assembled comprise M-80s, quarter-sticks,
and other illegal fireworks. The court held that Firefox's actions
violated the Federal Hazardous Substances Act and the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations in its illegal
packaging and shipping of the chemicals.

CPSC, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Department of
Justice's Office of Consumer Litigation worked cooperatively on this
case.

Perchlorate settlement with Former Fireworks Factory

Deal will clean Santa Clarita Valley aquifers
By Valerie Reitman, Times Staff Writer
May 3, 2007

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-water3may03,1,3991180.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california

Perchlorate contaminating the Santa Clarita Valley's underground water supply is to be cleaned up under an estimated $100-million settlement of a federal lawsuit against former and present owners of a shuttered munitions and fireworks factory announced Wednesday.

The suit was filed by four area water agencies in November 2000 against Whittaker Corp., Remediation Financial Inc. and Santa Clarita LLC over pollution at the 996-acre site known as the Whittaker-Bermite plant, which for decades operated in the heart of Santa Clarita.

Five public wells were shut in 1997, about a decade after the plant closed, after the perchlorate contamination was discovered.

Perchlorate compounds are used in the manufacture of explosives, munitions and rocket fuel.

Under the agreement, a treatment plant will be built to clean up pollution in two local aquifers.

The facility will be at Bouquet Canyon Road, next to the Castaic Lake Water Agency pump station. The agency was a plaintiff, along with the Newhall County Water Agency, the Santa Clarita Water Co. and the Valencia Water Co.

The settlement is still subject to federal District Court and Bankruptcy Court approval. The current site owners filed for bankruptcy in 2002.

Two potential buyers — SunCal Cos., a builder, and Cherokee Investment Partners, which specializes in redeveloping polluted properties — have proposed buying and developing the site with homes and businesses after soil cleanup is complete.

"Show Me the Spending" coalition

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:55:33 GMT
From: "National Taxpayers Union"
To:
Subject: Tell State Politicians: Show Me the Spending!

Dear LAAG:

State governments dole out billions of tax dollars every year through grants, contracts, and other forms of spending. Where's the money going? Our newly formed "Show Me the Spending" coalition believes you have a right to know.

The National Taxpayers Union and our coalition partners are working to pass legislation in all 50 states requiring a so-called "Google government" website that would allow you to see how the state government is spending your hard-earned money. Please help us now by visiting the coalition's homepage, www.showmethespending.org , and telling your legislators to "Show Me the Spending!"

As you may know, last year President Bush signed the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act into law. Originally sponsored by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Barack Obama (D-IL), the bipartisan legislation is creating a searchable online database that the general public can use to track hundreds of billions of dollars in federal grant and contract expenditures.

Taxpayers deserve this kind of openness from state government too. The cost would be small, and the result would help to hold all elected officials accountable for state spending. While more than a dozen other states have limited versions of disclosure websites for grants and/or contracts, only one (Kansas) has created the kind of cohesive, comprehensive database envisioned in the federal legislation.

Providing an easy-to-use tool like the searchable website would enable you and your fellow residents to make sense of how your tax dollars are being parceled out, and make your own determinations of government's spending priorities.

The coalition's new website, www.showmethespending.org , features a constantly-updated legislative status center for all 50 states, model legislation for officials, research on the benefits of state spending disclosure, and a grassroots action center that gives citizens like you the ability to petition your legislators.

Conservatives, liberals, and everyone in between ought to agree that transparency of and public access to government information is vital to the health of our political system. Wherever you stand on the issues, please click over to www.showmethespending.org and speak out today!

Sincerely,

John Berthoud

--------------------------------------------------

Please forward this message to at least 3 of your friends and
get them involved today!

http://ga1.org/join-forward.html?domain=ntu_action&r=27xnuWY1f4j9

L.A. County violated state's open meetings law

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-secrecy21apr21,1,6492712.story

From the Los Angeles Times
Legal experts say L.A. County violated state's open meetings law
By Jack Leonard and Susannah Rosenblatt
Times Staff Writers

April 21, 2007

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, long criticized for conducting public business behind closed doors, violated the state's open meetings law earlier this week when members privately selected a headhunting firm to find a new top manager, according to several open-government experts.

The board unanimously voted during a closed meeting on Tuesday to negotiate a recruitment contract with Ralph Andersen & Associates. Legal experts said the state's Ralph M. Brown Act requires such discussions to be held in public.

The board's decision was made as the district attorney's office investigates a separate allegation that supervisors violated the Brown Act three weeks ago. Prosecutors launched their probe after a member of the public complained that the board tried to discuss in private the federal government's decision to continue funding for Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital.

"I think their track record as to recognizing their responsibility to the public is really a miserable one," said Rich McKee, an open-government activist who has successfully sued the county and other public agencies for violating the Brown Act.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who chairs the board, said he and his colleagues relied on the advice of their county counsel, who told them their actions were legal. He noted that supervisors ultimately discussed the hospital funding issue in public.

"I think that the board has expended a lot of time, energy and resources to comply with the Brown Act," Yaroslavsky said. "It doesn't mean that you're perfect, but I think the county has done a far better job than it has done in the past and a far better job than many local government entities are doing."

The controversy comes at a time of growing concern about secrecy in California government. Open-government activists complain that a recent Supreme Court decision has prompted closings of police disciplinary hearings, and an attorney general's opinion has limited the information prosecutors can release about criminal cases.

There are few sanctions for public agencies that break the state's open meetings law. Prosecutors rarely file charges against public officials accused of discussing public matters in secret. The usual remedy is for prosecutors or members of the public to file suit to invalidate the vote. A judge can order the guilty agency to pay a plaintiff's legal fees.

County supervisors have a mixed record on Brown Act compliance. In 2001, they voted in closed session to instruct lawyers to block a ballot initiative that sought higher wages for workers who cared for disabled people. McKee and The Times sued. A state appellate court ruled that the board broke the law and tried to conceal it.

In 2004, Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley concluded that supervisors violated the law when they met privately and decided to close the trauma center at Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center. The Times sued again.

But a Superior Court judge disagreed with Cooley, ruling that the board was justified in privately discussing the trauma unit's fate as it grappled with threats from federal health inspectors to pull about $200 million in funding.

In the most recent episode, county supervisors met Tuesday morning to privately discuss the choice of a recruitment firm to find candidates to replace Chief Administrative Officer David Janssen. Earlier this year, the county offered the CAO job to two candidates, only to be rejected by both.

Some supervisors had criticized the county's approach to finding candidates. So, though the board rarely interviews recruitment firms, Janssen said supervisors wanted to be involved. Officials from two headhunting firms spoke during the meeting before the board made its selection, Janssen said.

The Brown Act prohibits elected bodies from privately discussing issues that involve an independent contractor, unless the contractor is working as a county employee.

County Counsel Raymond G. Fortner Jr. said the county's decision complied with state law because the recruitment firm will perform work similar to that of a county human resources employee. "They're doing essentially what county staff are doing or can do," Fortner said. "It's a short-term, temporary item."

But several 1st Amendment lawyers said they doubted such an explanation would hold up in court and described the board's action as a violation of the law.

"I think that the county counsel's position is dead wrong," said James Chadwick, a partner with Sheppard Mullin in San Francisco. "It's one of the clearer examples of a violation of the Brown Act that I've heard."

Terry Francke, author of a book about the Brown Act and general counsel for Californians Aware, a nonprofit open-government group, agreed.

"If they knew they were going to talk about independent contractor recruiting firms," he said, "they should have recognized right away that that should have been in open session."

jack.leonard@latimes.com

susannah.rosenblatt@latimes.com