Lakewood CA guidelines for fireworks use

From the City website:

Your help is needed to ensure Lakewood remains a safe place. Lakewood residents are encouraged to follow these rules when celebrating the 4th of July.

■ The possession or discharge of illegal fireworks is prohibited. The Sheriff’s Department has a Zero Tolerance Policy and will cite all offenses. “Safe and Sane” fireworks should be discharged by an adult, in a safe location.
■ Discharge of “Safe and Sane” and illegal fireworks in City parks is prohibited.
■ Fireworks may only be purchased or in your possession between July 1st and July 4th. The discharge of fireworks is limited to July 4th, between 10 a.m. and 11 p.m. Fireworks should be discharged by an adult, in a safe location.
■ Trespassing laws will be enforced, and individuals who discharge fireworks or conduct celebrations on private property without the owner’s permission will be cited.
■ Gunfire is prohibited.
■ Public drinking and/or possession of alcoholic beverages in public places and public
intoxication are prohibited.
■ Following a warning by the Sheriff’s Department, individuals who host large parties that disturb the peace and quiet of the neighborhood may be billed for the costs of breaking up the party.
■ Streets may not be blocked to accommodate parties and large gatherings unless a block party permit has been issued. Permits may be obtained by calling City Hall at (562) 866-9771.
■ If you drink, don’t drive!
■ If you have homes in your neighborhood that have hosted unruly or unsafe 4th of July celebrations in the past (or have used illegal fireworks), please report them. Call our 4th of July hotline at (562) 866-9771 extension SAFE (7233). All the information you provide will be treated as confidential.

If you observe ongoing criminal activity, call the Sheriff’s Department at 562/866-9061. Dial 9-1-1 to report crimes in progress. Criminal activity may be reported anonymously. All laws will be proactively enforced and violators will be prosecuted. By following these rules and taking an active part in reporting crime, we can ensure a safe holiday season.

Penalties
(from 2007 newsletter: http://www.imakenews.com/lakewood/e_article000840709.cfm?x=b9LFt56,b7mMbfLh)

The possession or use of illegal fireworks during the upcoming holiday season brings stiff penalties: citations that could result in a fine up to $1,000 and up to a year in the county jail. Possession of larger amounts of illegal fireworks can result in a felony charge.

“Lakewood is serious about illegal fireworks and the fireworks scofflaws who can ruin July 4th for Lakewood families,” notes Captain Dave Fender, commander of the Lakewood Sheriff’s Station. “With the city’s assistance, I’ve deployed an expanded team of deputies that is visiting every location where illegal fireworks were used in 2006. Warnings from deputies will be followed by citations, if illegal fireworks are found or used this year.

“But we can’t stop illegal fireworks use with just my deputies. It’s going to take every Lakewood resident. Don’t use illegal fireworks. Don’t encourage or tolerate their use. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s okay.”

Lakewood residents who have witnessed the use of illegal fireworks or know of a home that has hosted an unruly or unsafe July 4th celebration in the past are being asked to call Lakewood’s fireworks tip hotline at 562-866-9771, extension SAFE (7233) to make a confidential report. (Criminal activity in progress should be reported to the Lakewood Sheriff’s Station by calling 562-623-3500.)

CALIFORNIA FIREWORKS LAWS

3105 LMC – Fireworks
(a) “Safe and sane” fireworks may be sold within the City of Lakewood between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on July 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th of each year provided a permit has been obtained to doso and terms/provisions are in compliance.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to fire, set off, discharge or use, or cause or permit to fire, set off, discharge or use any fireworks except for “safe and sane” fireworks during the period between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. on July 4th.

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to have in his or her possession any fireworks except from 8:00 a.m. on July 1st through 11:00 p.m. on July 4th. Organizations to which permits have been issued may accept delivery of fireworks for stocking purposes no more than 24 hours prior to the time allotted for fireworks sales. Violation of 3105 LMC is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding twelve (12) months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both.

12676 H/S – Sale or transfer.
It is unlawful for any person to sell, transfer, give, deliver, or otherwise convey title of any dangerous fireworks, including fireworks kits, to any person in this State who does not possess and present to the seller or donor for inspection at the time of transfer, a valid permit to receive, use, or transport dangerous fireworks as provided in this part.

12679 H/S – Storage, etc. near flammable liquids.
It is unlawful for any person to store, sell, or discharge any type of fireworks in or within 100 feet of a location where gasoline or any other flammable liquids are stored or dispensed.

12680 H/S – Fireworks near people.
It is unlawful for any person to place, throw, discharge or ignite, or fire dangerous fireworks at any person or group of persons where there is a likelihood of injury to any such person.

12685 H/S – Public display.
It is unlawful for any person to conduct a public display without possessing a valid permit for this purpose.

12688 H/S – Advertisement for sale of fireworks.
It is unlawful for any person to advertise to sell or transfer any class of fireworks, including agricultural and wildlife fireworks or model rocket engines, unless he possesses a valid license or permit.

12689 H/S – Sale to minors.
(a) It is unlawful for any person to sell, give, or deliver any dangerous fireworks to any person under 18 years of age.
(b) It is unlawful for any person who is a retailer to sell or transfer any safe and sane fireworks to a person who is under 16 years of age.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (d), it is unlawful for any person who is a retailer to sell or transfer to a person under the age of 18 any rocket, rocket propelled projectile launcher, or similar device containing any explosive or incendiary material whether or not the device is designed for emergency or distance signaling purposes. It is also unlawful for a minor to possess such a device unless he or she has the written permission of, or is accompanied by, his or her parent or guardian while it is in his or her possession.
(d) Model rocket products including model rockets, launch systems, and model rocket motors designed, sold, and used for the purpose of propelling recoverable model rockets may be sold or transferred pursuant to regulations, adopted by the State Fire Marshal which the Fire Marshal determines are reasonably necessary to carry out the requirements of this part. Violation of these laws is a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding twelve (12) months, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both.

Property Taxes, Retirement Promises, and Municipal Bonds

This is a great article and we wish more would read it. Then perhaps people would see that local govt follies and deficits are just as bad as at the federal level, just more hidden....[editor]

by Gary North
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north537.html

Investors like bonds. Bonds are sources of long-term income. As investors grow older, they invest a greater percentage of their portfolios in bonds. They are more concerned about income than they are about capital appreciation. The louder the clock ticks, the more important income is, compared to stock appreciation.

A major problem for bond holders is the solvency of the issuing institution. Bond-rating services are important for investors, including institutional buyers, especially retirement fund managers. The less likely the ability to repay, the lower the bond rating. The lower the bond rating, the higher the rate of interest the issuing institution must pay.

This means that someone who has purchased bonds of an issuing agency whose bond rating falls will suffer a loss of capital. The market value of his bonds falls when the interest rate on newly issued bonds rises. Bonds rise or fall in price inversely to the interest rate.

Across the nation, municipal governments are facing downgrading of their bonds. The reason is unexpected health care obligations for retired workers. This problem is growing. There is no way out of it without governments having to revoke promises, either to retired workers or to investors.

THE LURE OF TAX EXEMPTION

The promise of income tax-free returns has led millions of investors into buying municipal bonds. In states with a state income tax, munis issued by cities within that state are usually exempt from state income taxes. This benefit seems great to rich people who have grown tired of paying income taxes all of their adult lives. So, they choose to buy munis instead of higher-interest taxable bonds. They enjoy the pleasure of not having to report this income to the tax authorities.

By forfeiting tax revenues from income generated by various local municipal bonds, the Federal and state governments have granted an implicit subsidy to the debt instruments of local governments. This has encouraged local governments to issue more debt than they otherwise would have. They would have had to pay out higher rates of interest than they actually agreed to pay. This higher cost would have made additional debt issues less likely.

Investors took the bait of a lower tax burden. The municipalities took the bait of lower interest rates paid by income tax-free debt instruments. The result: lots of debt.

The problem with this arrangement is that municipal governments are run by politicians who want to be re-elected. Their time frame is relatively short: the next election. They know that they will not be in office if the obligations to pay off the bonds begin to squeeze the local budget. They stay in office by delivering what appear to be free services to local voters. So, they are tempted to issue debt as a way of buying votes in the next election without personally suffering the political consequences when the future debts come due. This tends to increase the level of municipal debt.

A bond is a promise to pay investors. The longer the debt repayment period, the more likely it is that the debt level will increase because of the time perspective of politicians, who issue debt and promote bond issues to the voters. The politicians vote in terms of their personal time perspective – the next election – on behalf of an impersonal entity that in theory is immortal: the city government.

Just as the hope of income tax-free returns lures investors into buying municipal bonds that pay a lower rate of interest than corporate bonds of equal risk ratings, so is the lure of free health care in old age for municipal workers. They have for decades accepted wages that are lower than those paid to employees in profit-seeking firms because of the seemingly superior health care benefits that municipal governments offer to their workers and retired workers.

RISKY ASSUMPTIONS

First, bond investors make an assumption: municipal governments will fulfil their obligations because they can tax residents to meet the payment schedule. Because a city government can tax residents, investors assume that residents cannot escape.

Second, workers make an assumption: residents will have no choice but honor their obligations to retired workers.

Third, residents make an assumption: politicians will not increase the debt obligations of the government to levels unsustainable by future tax revenues.

Fourth, politicians make an assumption: tomorrow will not come during their terms in office. Different elected officials will be in office when the bills come due.

Fifth, the thought of default is not on the minds of any of the participants. They all assume that the municipality will always be able to meet its contractual obligations. The system of negative sanctions known as bankruptcy is widely assumed by all participants as somehow not applying to municipal governments.

There is confidence that governments can somehow escape the laws of economics. Somehow, income will always be there for governments to tap. Somehow, obligations will not exceed revenues. Somehow, the bills will not come due.

WARNINGS

From time to time, there is a newspaper report, probably run in the section on city or county government, that raises the question of solvency. A local reporter files a story on a report by some committee on the escalating fiscal burden of employee retirement programs, especially the portion associated with health care insurance. The story surveys the fact of rising health care costs and compares this with expected revenues.

Residents read these stories, if at all, with no sense of alarm. They figure they can always move away if the local tax burden gets too high. They don’t think of what this legal tax burden will do to local property values. This unintended consequence is never mentioned in the article. Readers see rising prices on property, and they conclude that there will always be someone ready to buy their homes, no matter what the property tax burden is.

In other words, they discount the risks of the future. So do local politicians. So do bond investors. So do employees of the local government. So do retired employees.

This is the great threat of debt in our era. People do not believe that governments will default. They assume that political promises to pay will be honored by voters in the future. After all, these promises have been honored so far.

CALIFORNIA DREAMING

In a June 10, 2007 story run by the Los Angeles Times, "Public sector reels at retiree healthcare tab," a reporter dutifully reported on growing evidence that municipal governments have run up bills to municipal employees on a scale that the public has not imagined.

The article began with a human-interest story. An 83-year-old San Diego woman who suffers from hallucinations if she doesn’t receive her medicine. She also suffers from cancer and diabetes. She is now facing homelessness. She had been a county employee. She has a $1,000 a month pension. She also has medical coverage for whatever Medicare does not cover. The story says she may lose this coverage. "Where has compassion gone?" she asks.

It has little to do with compassion. It has to do with politics. This woman made the mistake of confusing compassion and politics. So have tens of millions of Americans who are dependent on government payments for work performed or taxes paid decades ago.

The issue is contract, not compassion. The courts cannot measure compassion. They can read contracts. If courts allow politicians to break contracts, those who are dependent on former political contracts are at risk.

Medicare and Social Security obligations are unfunded. Some estimates are that these two programs are unfunded in the range of $70 trillion. Yet these obligations are not counted as part of the on-budget debt of the United States government. This figure is in the range of $9 trillion.

Why the discrepancy? Legally, it exists because the U.S. government says that Medicare and Social Security obligations, unlike public debt in the form of T-bills and T-bonds held by the public and the Federal Reserve System, do not constitute legal obligations of the United States government. Some future Congress may reduce the payments. That is Congress’s option.

Local governments have obligations to retirees analogous to the obligations of the U.S. government to retirees. The courts are far less willing to enforce these contracts, compared to bonds.

The trade unions of course will battle any such unilateral default. But these unions are growing less and less powerful over time. As voters grow tired of the burdens imposed by retired workers, the municipal workers’ unions will face a restricted market.

Voters are not enamored of trade unions in our day. Well over 85% of all American workers are not represented by trade unions. Most of those who are represented by unions are government employees. Voters who are not union members are not reliable supporters of tax policies whose main beneficiaries are retired city or county workers.

The expected obligation of the Los Angeles Unified School District for health care coverage is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, the article reports. "These costs are just crushing," said district general counsel Kevin Reed.

Over the next three decades, the state of California is facing annual payouts of a billion dollars a year, and maybe more.

Contra Costa County’s retiree healthcare tab is on track to grow larger than the value of all its assets by 2012, according to a government report, which would make the county at that point "technically insolvent."

This is not way into the distant future. This is in the next five years. And the flow of red ink is just getting started.

In just four years ending in fiscal 2004–05, the cost of providing healthcare to the average Los Angeles County retiree doubled. By 2011, government retiree healthcare costs statewide are projected to be nearly triple those in 2004.

Private companies are now in the process of re-negotiating contracts regarding health costs for retirees. The era of such benefits is coming to an end in the private sector. But it seems to persist in the public sector. It will not persist for long. When taxpayers see their property taxes rise and the value of their homes fall, they will be in no mood to suffer escalating capital losses because of promises made to municipal unions a generation ago.

The state of California estimates that the price tag for providing such health benefits has reached more than $500,000 for a married retiree and spouse who live 20 years after retiring. Because many government employees retire before 60 and since life expectancies continue to grow, the cost could easily reach $1 million for some employees.

This is not going to happen. Any retiree who expects it to happen is living in a fantasy world. Voters will not suffer capital losses and ever-rising taxes in order to maintain contractual obligations negotiated in better fiscal days.

Compassion is a matter of voluntary considerations and individual circumstances. It has to do with charity. "Where has compassion gone?" It went away a long time ago, when union members decided that contracts negotiated on the threat of organized simultaneous walkouts by workers became a substitute for compassion. When political power was substituted for compassion, compassion moved off the scene.

The reporter cites a statement from an employee of an accounting firm that helps municipal governments track their future obligations. "I can’t tell you how surprised many of our clients have been," he said.

Surprise, surprise! Accounting actually matters. But politicians have paid little attention to accounting. Neither have union leaders, who for years could take credit for negotiating on-paper successes in future health care retirement benefits. Neither have retirees.

How large are the benefits? Consider this. The article describes a retired employee of San Diego County who served 30 years. At the time of his retirement, he was earning $80,000 a year. His retirement pension is $70,000 a year, plus the health care benefits.

The county’s officials are considering a plan to reduce the health care benefits of high-salaried employees. This of course is a means test. It is a clear violation of contract. The municipal union is fighting this decision. But the union is not in a strong bargaining position. The county charter allows the retirement board to cut off retirement benefits to all retirees in one fell swoop.

Los Angeles County has no such loophole. State law prohibits this. It is facing costs of $20 billion over the next 30 years.

There is some talk that the various governments should put aside present revenues to pay future obligations. This has not been done in the past. Will this work? No.

The nonpartisan California Health Care Foundation projects that, thanks to skyrocketing healthcare costs, an upcoming surge of retirements and lengthening life spans, the price to governments of continuing to provide coverage at the current rate will increase 15% a year over the next 15 years. Even if public employers had many billions to invest – which they don’t – insurance costs will continue to rise much faster than investment earnings, the foundation says.

A political battle looms among retirees, bond investors, and taxpayers.

PROPERTY TAXES

The housing bubble has obscured the future of housing prices in an era of huge public employee retirement obligations.

This much is certain: contracts will be violated. The question is: Which group will be the biggest losers? Retirees, bond investors, or taxpayers?

When you consider a place to live out your golden years, one consideration should be local municipal bond obligations. Counties and cities without a long tradition of bond issues are preferable to those that have run up large liabilities. But equally important is the obligation to retired workers.

Large cities are generally far more exposed to lawsuits for default and union pressures than small towns are. They have run up larger bills. This is another reason for retirees to get outside of large cities.

Don’t own a home on the fringes of a tax-hungry city. Nonincorporated areas are being swallowed up by cities, which don’t allow county residents to vote on the absorption. County taxpayers are regarded as under-taxed fish to catch. So, it is better to be in a small incorporated city. This keeps urban debt monsters at bay.

CONCLUSION

Municipal bonds are higher-risk investments than most investors believe. I think it is much safer to buy a bond fund filled with bonds denominated in currencies other than dollars. This way, you hedge your risk against a depreciating dollar. You must pay income taxes on the income. Better this than to pay the inflation tax when the dollar is debased by the Federal Reserve System in order to pay off government debts at all levels.

Debasing the dollar does not involve breaking any legal contracts. That’s why it is so predictable, long term.

June 13, 2007

Gary North is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com. He is also the author of a free 19-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible.
garynorth@garynorth.com

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

Lassen County CA Fire Dept. proposes ban on all safe and sane fireworks

Bans are becoming the norm this year.

Fire Dept. proposes ban on all safe and sane fireworks
Posted on Tuesday, June 12 @ 10:20:55 PDT
Lassen County News
http://www.lassennews.com/News_Story.edi?sid=4013&mode=thread&order=0

Headline June 12, 2007 — Other than on the Fourth of July, the use of fireworks within Susanville’s city limits may become an outlawed activity.

That’s because the Susanville Fire Department proposed a ban on all safe and sane fireworks sold within Lassen County at the regular city council meeting on Wednesday, June 6.

Fire Chief Stu Ratner explained that he felt it was in the best interest of the city to consider the impact sales of fireworks might have on the area, considering the unseasonably warm winter and high fire danger.

As he addressed the city council, Ratner explained some facts to the city council regarding the current weather conditions around the county.

“Presently there exists in the city of Susanville and throughout the region a level of humidity and extreme dry conditions,” Ratner said. “Fire season can typically last until Oct. 31, and this year promises to be one of the driest in recent years.”

Ratner also explained the number of people bringing illegal fireworks into Lassen County has increased. He went on to say in recent years fires have been caused by both illegal and safe and sane fireworks. He said that in the last couple of years, the level of illegal fireworks in the county has increased so much “You could probably see a better show in the Wal-Mart parking lot than you can at the fairgrounds.”

Based on SFD’s fire reports, Ratner suggested it might be in the best interest for the city to ban the sales and use of all fireworks in the city, except for the above ground display at the Lassen County Fairgrounds on July 4.

Ratner said he understands banning fireworks would make a lot of people very unhappy. However he explained that taking measures to prevent fires in order to help preserve the wellbeing of as many people as possible was the fire department’s responsibility.

Ratner went further by requesting that all burning within the city limits stop as of July 1, also due mainly to the dry weather conditions. He said because volunteerism isn’t what it used to be, the staffing at the fire department is low, and without the proper number of people to help control average usage of fireworks, it could look like a war zone around the city.

People in attendance at the city council meeting voiced concern over why this course of action wasn’t talked about sooner. Because of what the council considered uncertainty toward fire danger, the council continued the issue to the next meeting, so more research could be conducted to verify the potential danger of unchecked fireworks usage.

The ban is aimed primarily at safe and sane fireworks, as the majority of the people present at the meeting agreed on the difficulty of monitoring the trafficking of illegal fireworks into and out of the area.

The council meets again at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, June 20 at City Hall on North Lassen Street.

Alamaba bans fireworks for 2007

This is actually funny as TNT fireworks is headquartered in Alabama. So looks like they will have to send all their smoke and flames to CA as we dont have a fire danger here...doh!


Ala. State Fire Marshal Joins State Forester's Fireworks Ban
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2007/06/14/80827.htm

June 14, 2007

State Forester Linda Casey issued an emergency drought declaration temporarily banning discharging fireworks in 33 Alabama counties. Alabama State Fire Marshal Ed Paulk has joined in the issuance.

"The situation in our state is extremely dangerous for burning and for the use of fireworks," Paulk said. "We are joining the State Forester in her efforts to prevent a tragedy in our state. We hope Alabamians will be patient through this time of danger."

The ban exempts displays fired over water.

The Alabama Forestry Commission will accept applications for organized displays, such as those sponsored by municipalities or other organizations, and will consult with the State Fire Marshal before granting those permits.

The 33 counties where the ban is in effect are: Bibb, Blount, Calhoun, Chambers, Cherokee, Clay, Cleburne, Colbert, Coosa, Cullman, DeKalb, Etowah, Fayette, Franklin, Jackson, Jefferson, Lamar, Lauderdale, Lawrence, Limestone, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Morgan, Pickens, Randolph, Shelby, St. Clair, Talladega, Tallapoosa, Tuscaloosa, Walker and Winston.

Source: Alabama Department of Insurance

What pension liability...?

LAAG does not like the sound of this. On the one hand we like the Texas legislature saying the public coffers are not "guaranteed" to be paid to secure health benefits to public workers (just like in the private sector there are no guarantees of anything). How ever it looks like states are taking their cue from the feds: just fix the accounting so that no deficit has to be disclosed to the public! PERFECT! Why didn't we think of this before? If we don't show the liability on the books it does not exist right? This is the way public officials and politicians actually think. Maybe they will let all the private citizens that support these public workers do the same "creative accounting" on their taxes. Somehow I don't think that will happen. Unbelievable.


Daniel Weintraub: Moving past denial on retiree health care liability
By Daniel Weintraub -

Published June 12, 2007
Story appeared in EDITORIALS section, Page B7
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/217072.html

There has been a lot of gloom and doom lately as California's state and local governments have begun to come to grips with the massive unfunded liability they face for health benefits they have promised to retired public employees.

But it could be worse. They could be downplaying the problem and telling the obscure private board that sent them into this scramble to buzz off.

That's what at least two states -- Texas and Connecticut -- appear to be doing. And the rebellion might be spreading. But not to California, so far.

And that's at least a glimmer of good news in an otherwise depressing story.

The Government Accounting Standards Board set all of this in motion when it ruled that state and local governments should tally up how much they owe for retirement benefits and then disclose that number publicly as part of their official balance sheets.

But not everyone is going along.

Texas made national headlines last month when its Legislature passed a bill that declared the Lone Star State independent of the accounting board on this issue. Since Texas does not have public employee unions or union contracts, state officials contend that the health benefits they pay to retirees are not guaranteed. The Legislature, in theory, approves them every two years with the budget and could revoke them at any time.

As a result, the state's comptroller, Susan Combs, has argued that it would be wrong to disclose a long-term liability and worse to set aside money to pay for it, since, in her view, no obligation exists.

She may be on firm legal ground. Some local governments in California are considering the same issue. They are not turning it into a protest against the accounting standard or the board itself, as some in Texas seem to want to do. They're just saying that if they don't guarantee the benefits, then the taxpayers are not liable for those benefits into the future. That makes some sense.

Combs wants to create a separate accounting mechanism to measure and report what the liability would be if Texas continued to pay health benefits to retirees as it does today. That number is expected to be about $50 billion over the next 50 years.

Connecticut's challenge to the standards is both more subtle, and more troubling. That state does have a true, legal liability. It just does not want to admit it.

Connecticut's Legislature is considering a bill that would authorize its comptroller to simply ignore the accounting board's rules -- all of them -- and come up with her own instead.

Comptroller Nancy S. Wyman has suggested that Connecticut set aside $100 million from a surplus in this year's budget and 10 percent of any future surpluses. Those actions, she said, would help reduce the state's projected liability of $21 billion. But she says that trying to do more would risk a backlash from legislators and the public that might result in even less progress.

"I'm trying to get this state back onto the right accounting principles and to do its accounting and budgeting in the right way, and the only way I can do that is by this piece of legislation," Wyman told the New York Times.

If that's the case, ignoring widely accepted accounting standards is a strange way to go about it.

In nearby Suffolk County, N.Y., the comptroller was even more blunt -- and more ignorant.

"All of a sudden we have to project 25 to 30 years down the road," County Comptroller Joseph Sawicki Jr. told Newsday. "It's ludicrous. ... It's another bureaucratic mandate coming from the federal government, which is costing every municipality money to hire these consultants to evaluate our costs down the road."

Actually, it's not a federal government mandate. The Government Accounting Standards Board is a private, nonprofit organization, and its standards are voluntary. Its purpose is to make government accounting at least as transparent as corporate accounting, to give the public and investors more insight into public agencies' assets and their liabilities.

Fortunately, the kind of pushback the standards are getting elsewhere hasn't been happening in California. State Controller John Chiang hired an actuary a year early to determine what the state's liability will be. His answer: $48 billion.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the legislative leaders, meanwhile, have appointed a commission to study the problem and recommend ways for the state and local governments to deal with it, either by setting money aside or by reducing benefits, or both.

And CalPERS, the state pension agency, has established an investment fund to which the state and local governments can contribute and (it is hoped) see their money grow over time, paying for retiree health benefits the same way that pensions have been financed for years.

Getting on top of this issue is not going to be easy. There may be more resistance once the government is forced to actually put some money away rather than only talking about doing so. But California is at least not in complete denial. And that's better than some other places are doing.

Woops...Baca does it again!

The Press accuses Baca of favoring Paris Hilton. So I guess he figures that this complaint does not apply to her parents. Would someone please hire a management consultant and new PR guy for Baca. He needs help and so does his entire department.


Paris Hilton's parents bypass line on jail visit
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070613.whiltonparents0613/BNStory/Entertainment/home
RAQUEL MARIA DILLON Associated Press
June 13, 2007 at 5:55 AM EDT

LOS ANGELES — Paris Hilton's parents visited their daughter after breezing past others waiting to see loved ones — an incident that raised new complaints that the heiress is receiving special treatment.

The visit came less than a week after Hilton was reassigned to house arrest days after being jailed for violating parole. The 26-year-old celebrity was later ordered back to jail.

Alvina Floyd, one visitor to the at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility, waited more than four hours to visit her fiancé. It normally takes two hours, and Floyd, 20, blamed the Hiltons for the delay.

“I have to be at work later,” she said. “I can't wait here all day.”

Shatani Alverson, 23, said she was hustled out of the jail's visiting room moments after her husband walked in because of the Hiltons. She was told to come back after lunch.

Steve Whitmore, a sheriff's spokesman, said it was routine for high-profile inmates to receive visitors during lunch, a time when the visiting room is normally cleared out and closed.

The visit came shortly after the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors ordered Sheriff Lee Baca to respond by next week to allegations of favouritism for reassigning Hilton to house arrest. At the time, Baca cited an undisclosed medical condition as the reason for making the decision.

Hilton was sent to a medical ward, where sheriff's officials said it costs $1,109.78 (U.S.) a day to house a female inmate compared to $99.64 a day in the general population.

Mary Tiedeman, who regularly visits the jails as a monitor for the ACLU, said the area where Hilton was being housed was usually reserved for high-security inmates or those worse off than Hilton has appeared.

“I don't know what her health issue is, but you have got to have a pretty intense medical or mental health problem to be in that part of the jail,” she said.

"I want the Hilton treatment please..."

Here we go...all the inmates now want to get out just like Paris Hilton did as they are "sad" too. This is an example of how you don't manage inmates and why when it comes to celebrities you unfortunately have to set an example, or in some cases go beyond it. But Baca does not know anything about management or "public impressions" of his agency. Can the Board of Supervisors fix the situation with an elected official in over his head? Can the $399,000 a year yet to be hired ("crowned") County CEO "guru" fix Baca's mess? Only time will tell. Stay tuned to the Hollywood channels for the latest on the County mismanagement. Paris Hilton may be Baca's last fumble. All Baca can hope for is that these two week go by fast or that some other story snags the headlines.


County board to probe Hilton release
Supervisors are expected to ask Sheriff Lee Baca to explain whether the hotel heiress got special treatment when she was sent home from jail.
By Tami Abdollah and Andrew Blankstein, Times Staff Writers
June 12, 2007

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-paris12jun12,1,1761771.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is expected today to ask Sheriff Lee Baca to prepare a report on Paris Hilton's release from jail in Lynwood — just three days into her mandated 23-day stay — to determine whether she was afforded special treatment.

Baca had cited an undisclosed medical condition for allowing Hilton to leave the Century Regional Detention Facility and serve the remainder of her sentence under home confinement. But a judge disagreed, sending her back to jail Friday.

Tony Bell, a spokesman for Supervisor Mike Antonovich, said his office had been told that judges were receiving requests for "the Paris Hilton treatment" from other county inmates wanting to be reassigned to home detention for medical reasons.

A key focus of the board's review, officials said, will be Hilton's medical condition and whether authorities could have treated her at the Lynwood jail or moved her to the county jail medical ward. Baca will have one week to report back to supervisors.

"We have 20,000 inmates who were not comfortable, didn't like the food or were depressed in county jail," Bell said. "So to release Paris Hilton to home for medical reasons is clearly unfair. If her medical condition required immediate attention she should have been placed in Twin Towers, where she is now, and her issues addressed like any other inmate."

Baca told reporters last week that he released Hilton to home detention with electronic monitoring after she began "inexplicably deteriorating" while in jail. Baca did not detail her medical condition.

The difficulty many inmates have encountered in receiving medical care in the jail is documented in more than 10,000 confidential complaints filed by inmates from 2000 to 2005.

The records, reviewed by The Times in preparation for an article published last year, revealed an overwhelmed system in which sick inmates begged to be seen by a doctor for problems ranging from vaginal infections to mental illness. There was a backlog of several hundred inmates waiting to be seen.

It was common for inmates to wait a week or more to be evaluated, and when they were, they typically were treated and returned to their cells or sent to the jail's hospital.

"I feel myself becoming unglued, anxiety attacks, unstable," wrote one woman, who said her medication had run out two weeks earlier.

"Please," her hand-scrawled note read. "I need my medicine. Please."

In another case, a male inmate complained that he had been vomiting bile and traces of blood and losing weight for weeks, but that his requests to see a doctor had been ignored.

"This is well known by staff and inmates," the man wrote. "I don't know what it's going to take to get proper medical attention, short of expiring." Several days after complaining, the man was prescribed ulcer medication, records show. He remained in jail.

Terminally ill inmate Cynthia Barella was so desperate to see a doctor that she began banging her head against her cell wall, producing a bloody injury that couldn't be ignored. Barella, who suffered from hepatitis, cirrhosis and other ailments, was taken to a hospital, where she died the next day.

The Rev. Al Sharpton met with Baca on Monday to voice his concern over the "fairness issue." Attorney Gloria Allred filed a claim against the Sheriff's Department and the county, alleging that her client, who was in custody at the Lynwood jail, "had serious medical issues and was treated far worse than Paris Hilton."

A claim is a precursor to a lawsuit.

Pamela Richardson, a 51-year-old woman whose legs have been amputated, alleges that sheriff's deputies refused to treat her hernia or provide her with adequate medical care while she was in the Lynwood jail for three weeks in March, Allred said.

Meanwhile, there are signs Hilton is doing better in jail. In a telephone interview with ABC television's Barbara Walters, Hilton said she had not been eating or sleeping when she was at the Lynwood jail.

"I was severely depressed and felt as if I was in a cage. I was not myself. It was a horrible experience," Hilton told Walters, according to remarks posted on abcnews.com.

Hilton said the experience had changed her and she had become "much more spiritual."

"I'm not the same person I was," Hilton said. "I used to act dumb. It was an act. I am 26 years old, and that act is no longer cute. It is not who I am, nor do I want to be that person for the young girls who looked up to me."

tami.abdollah@latimes.com

andrew.blankstein@latimes.com

Thanks Baca!

Another example of Baca helping the taxpayers. Its not enough that Paris Hilton is costing taxpayers 1,100 per day vs 99.00 for the "normal" female inmate. Now all this phony medical treatment is drawing out all the lawsuits (also to be paid for with your tax dollars) by those that really did need the special treatment and did not get it. Will the Baca mismanagement ever end?


Allred Already Playing Race Card Over Paris
http://ww.tmz.com/2007/06/11/allred-already-playing-race-card-over-paris/

Posted Jun 11th 2007 4:17PM by TMZ Staff
Filed under: Celebrity Justice, Paris Hilton

Gloria Allred, Paris Hilton Using "young, white, rich" Paris Hilton for contrast, attorney Gloria Allred is going after the L.A. County Sheriff's Dept. on behalf of a 51-year-old African American veteran (a double amputee as a result of active duty), who was allegedly treated like crap during her stint in L.A. County Jail earlier this year.

In a press conference held just moments ago, Pamela Richardson, Army Specialist 6, said she was denied serious medical attention during her March 2007 stay in the Century Regional Detention Center -- "a direct contrast to Paris Hilton." As a result, Richardson claims that a hernia she believes developed while in custody went untreated, plus she was denied her cancer medication, and worst of all -- she claims to have been verbally bashed and humiliated by being forced to crawl around the facility without the use of her prosthetic leg. Richardson was arrested (for what Allred won't disclose), held at the Lynwood facility and then released. Charges were never filed against her.

click to watch"She's treated like a queen compared to what I got," Richardson said of Hilton. Allred added, "When Paris was remanded to jail, she cried out, 'It's not right.' We say, about the shocking discriminatory treatment of Pamela -- it's not right."

They're seeking more than a million dollars in damages.

Its not really about Paris Hilton

Lets get something straight. LAAG could care less about Paris Hilton. (LAAG does owe Paris however for helping to draw lots of medial attention to Sheriff Baca's actions.) What is more concerning to us (and should be to you readers) is that Sheriff Baca is acting like George "The Decider" Bush. The judge made it pretty clear in his May 8, 2007 order how Paris Hilton was and was not to serve her sentence. (read the order here from TMZ.com) The City Attorney's Office got upset when they realized Paris had been freed by Baca on some "vague medical reason" which no one will oficially clarify. The judge asked to see it and apparently has not as of this writing. So the City Attorney was understandably upset when Baca The Decider just decided on his own (without asking the judge) to release her from jail. LAAG understands that the Sheriff is in charge of the "administration" of the jail. But he cannot determine sentences. (Read the full text of the City Attorneys motion heard on June 8 from TMZ.com)

Don Knabe and the other LA County Board of Supervisors basically gave Baca a free pass on this (and most other things he does) as he is elected and they feel they have no responsibility for his actions. Read Knabe's press release. We that feeling may be changing as of this writing they are now calling for an investigation into Baca's Bush like "I control the world" mentality. See Story from North County Times below.

Now the British press reported on 6/10 that Baca accepted campaign contributions from Hilton family and that this looks like a quid pro quo. See story below from Daily Mail.

Finally as reported in the LA Times, if the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff would follow the law and allow more transparency in campaign contributions perhaps less of this type of thing would happen. See LA times story below.

I guess the www.recallbaca.com site was ahead of the news!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from The Daily Mail (UK)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=461025&in_page_id=1773

Paris's grandad gave election cash to sheriff who freed her
by SHARON CHURCHER in New York
Last updated at 14:12pm on 10th June 2007

Paris Hilton's billionaire grandfather donated money last year to the sheriff who released the 26-year-old heiress from jail.

William Barron Hilton, 78, co-chairman of the Hilton Hotel chain, made a contribution of around £500 ($1,000 approx) to Sheriff Lee Baca’s re-election campaign - the maximum allowed by law - according to financial records.

Was it right to send Paris back to jail? Join the debate in readers' comments below...

The Mail on Sunday examined the returns after a friend of the Hilton family claimed Paris’s release may have been a 'quid pro quo'.

The friend said: "A member of her family has been a contributor to Baca’s campaign and this may have been payback time.

"Her entourage initially were confident she would be out of jail in a few days."

Sheriff Baca has faced heavy criticism for attempting to overrule the judge in the case.

His spokesman Steve Whitmore reacted angrily when asked by The Mail on Sunday if Paris received special treatment because of the contribution, snapping, "Absolutely not."

Hilton left jail on Thursday, having served just three days of her sentence for flouting a drink-driving ban.

She was originally told she would spend 45 days in jail with no prospect of early release, although the term was later cut in half for good behaviour.

But when the outraged judge heard Hilton had been released to serve the remainder of the term at her luxury home, he ordered her to be sent back to jail.

He also said she must serve the full 45-day sentence.

Sheriff Baca has been accused of favouritism towards the Hollywood elite in the past.

Celebrities including Sylvester Stallone and Dustin Hoffman have backed his election campaigns since 1998.

Last summer, Sheriff Baca was at the centre of a row when he failed to report Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitic tirade after he was arrested for drink-driving.

Gibson had filmed TV adverts for one of Sheriff Baca’s pet causes - an education fund for policemen’s children.

Hilton’s early release has led Baca’s own employees to criticise him.

Steve Remige, president of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, which represents 9,000 deputies, said: "Outward appearances seem to be that the sheriff does lean toward favouritism of the rich and famous."

Baca, 65, insists he released Hilton because she was suffering from a worsening medical problem.

He said: "My biggest concern was basically her deterioration."

Hilton was under observation in the medical ward at Los Angeles’s Twin Towers jail.

Paris issued a statement saying her lawyers would not appeal the judge's decision.

It went on to say: "I was shocked to see all of the attention devoted to the amount of time I would spend in jail for what I had done by the media, public and city officials.

"I would hope going forward that the public and the media will focus on more important things like the men and women serving our country in Iraq and other places around the world."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-supes21may21,0,2896256.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail
From the Los Angeles Times

UNSUPERVISED
The county's slouch toward public access
Be patient. Los Angeles' county government will provide searchable campaign finance data online. Someday.

May 21, 2007

IT TOOK A LITTLE TIME, but the point is that it didn't take forever.

Times reporters Jack Leonard and Doug Smith grew weary of waiting for Los Angeles County to fulfill its commitment to make campaign contribution data easily available for public scrutiny. So the reporters and their editors did it themselves, hiring a company to computerize the records for $6,300. That's less than what the county registrar-recorder/clerk's office, with an annual budget of about $120 million, spent last year on "household expenses."

Then the Times built its own searchable database — in four months. That's less time than it often takes a county department to "report back" to the Board of Supervisors on a policy question. And it's far less time than it has taken the registrar-recorder/clerk to follow the board's directive to take candidates' campaign filings and actually post them online as a searchable database.

The subject came before the board in the fall of 2005 after The Times reported that a campaign finance law passed by voters in 1996 had been virtually ignored by the county. Candidates were filing their records, but no one was monitoring the data for compliance. The article embarrassed the supervisors, and Registrar-Recorder/Clerk Conny McCormack told them that she would put together a searchable database. Eighteen months later, the project still isn't done.

McCormack says she's doing the best she can, given other commitments, such as updating voting systems. So if you wanted to know who was donating money to the last winning campaigns of Supervisors Gloria Molina and Zev Yaroslavsky, Sheriff Lee Baca and Assessor Rick Auerbach, you had your choice of leafing through the paper documents at McCormack's office in Norwalk or calling up copies, one by one, online. If you wanted to search by donor — like you can in the city of L.A. and state of California — to quickly find how much a candidate is beholden to any single contributor or whether donors complied with the $1,000-per-candidate limit that voters adopted a decade earlier … well, too bad. Take a number.

McCormack promises her searchable online database will be ready by July 2. But even then, it will only allow users to check for donations made since January. This syrup-like pace calls into question how serious the elected supervisors were about wanting to open their campaign data to scrutiny. If public access to data within the fortress of county government were a priority, the project could have been completed by now.

Or, perhaps, even if the supervisors wanted the county bureaucracy to move faster, they were incapable of coaxing it into action. If that's the case, it forecasts a very long wait indeed for movement on gang violence, hospital reform, care for the homeless and a host of other services for which county government is responsible.

Also on campaign issues (from Earlier LA Times Reports):

Last year, the Los Angeles Times reported Baca put one of his closest friends on the payroll as a $105,000-a-year adviser.

The newspaper also said he had accepted more than $42,000 in gifts since taking office, including some from those who do business with his department.

In 2004, he took more gifts than California's other 57 sheriffs combined.

Baca oversees an 8,000-officer force that has been vexed by low morale, tight budgets, overcrowded jails and the persistence of gang crime.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

County Supervisors want investigation into Hilton's release from jail
June 8, 2007
By: North County Times wire services -
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/06/08/news/state/8_32_16_70_99.txt

LOS ANGELES - Just hours after Paris Hilton was released from jail, Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke said Thursday she wants an investigation into why the socialite was placed on electronic monitoring despite a judge's ruling that she be kept behind bars.

As of early afternoon, the five members of the Board of Supervisors had collectively received more than 400 phone calls, e-mails and faxes from constituents expressing their displeasure and anger over the socialite's release. County spokeswoman Judy Hammond said that as of 2:30 p.m., her office had received 550 angry e-mails and about 50 phone calls.

Nick Velasquez, a spokesman for the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office -- which prosecuted Hilton -- said the office has "been inundated with calls and e-mails from people" not only in Los Angeles but across the nation who were upset about Hilton's early release.

"One hundred percent of them are angry," he said.

When the Board of Supervisors meets on Tuesday, Burke said she plans to ask for a report on the situation.

"The decision is not inconsistent with current department policy. I do understand that there is massive overcrowding and there have been a lot of releases as a matter of practice," Burke said.

Sheriff Lee Baca is independently elected, but his budget is controlled by the Board of Supervisors. County supervisors routinely request reports and investigations from the sheriff.

Supervisor Mike Antonovich said he was "dismayed" by the decision to release the heiress, noting that Hilton's West Hollywood home is "more elaborate and plush than 99 percent of the people residing" in the county.

"This makes a mockery of due process and you're dealing with a spoiled brat, acting out to get her way instead of serving her time as was adjudicated by the courts. She should pay the consequences for her actions and what's happened -- she's now going home to her estate," Antonovich said.

Hilton, released from jail nearly three weeks ahead of schedule, will be confined to her cushy home overlooking the Sunset Strip for the next 40 days.

Supervisor Don Knabe said Hilton must serve her entire sentence.

"This incident with Paris Hilton is just the most recent that highlights the problems our criminal justice system has with making sure sentences stick, whether it is in a county jail or under electronic monitoring," Knabe said.

"Length of punishment belongs in the hands of our judges and when a judge imposes a sentence, that sentence needs to stick."

A Knabe aide said the office has received hundreds of e-mails from constituents, most of whom support the supervisor's position.

One person wrote, "It will be business as usual for poor Paris. Too bad I can't give her psychiatrist a call to find out how the start of a nervous breakdown looks in case I ever need to get out of jail."

Another person wrote in his e-mail, "I know for a fact that if I were to be sent to prison, I would not have the same advantage of being transferred to house arrest because of a potential nervous breakdown. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find anyone in jail who is not on the verge of a mental breakdown."

Sheriff's Department spokesman Steve Whitmore said the decision to release Hilton was made after "extensive consultation" with medical personnel, but he refused to elaborate, citing her privacy rights, although he said "there was no staph infection, or anything like that."

At a news conference outside the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, community activist Najee Ali with Project Islamic Hope said he wants the county to investigate how many other inmates in county jail have medical problems and may be eligible for electronic monitoring.

"As someone whose been inside the institution, I've seen hundreds of inmates in the jail wards that have medical conditions and they are not being released to home confinement," Ali said. "In fact, if Paris Hilton's medical condition is that serious, send her to the hospital to finish out her stay."

Accountability for $399,000 per year?

Well LAAG knew this was going to be a debacle when we heard of this rumor some months back. Now it has come true. You want accountability? Will give you a guy who is not elected and makes 399,000 per year of your tax dollars. Why the high price? Why 1,000 under 400,000? Is 400,000 to unreasonable. Hell we might as well pay him 600,000 a year. Even at 399,000 he will likely be the highest paid NON ELECTED politician/bureaucrat on the planet. As always, if you don't like this write to your Supervisor (www.knabe.com for Lakewood area residents) and tell them enough nonsense. Let this guy prove himself for two years first. Let him close "Killer King" hospital. Then once we know he is the go to guy reward him with a 399,000 salary. (With killer King gone the County will save a few hundred million a year). But alas it does not work that way when you are "political royalty". Once you get in you give yourself a big paycheck and then do what ever you want. Forget the voters, as they are apathetic and will never vote in a new maverick. Of course here we cant even vote out the 399,000 czar.

Here are some comparison salaries:
What are the highest paying jobs?

L.A. confidential
Will the county CEO-ocracy be honest and transparent?
From the L.A. Daily News
Article Launched: 06/10/2007 08:11:16 PM PDT
http://www.presstelegram.com/opinions/ci_6110144

Los Angeles County supervisors decided, rightly, last month that their government was lacking accountability. So they created a system that would make someone accountable once and for all - just not them.

That someone is the new county CEO, a bureaucratic muckety-muck who will make up to $399,000 a year in a position temporarily filled by the county's retired top administrator, David Janssen. The new CEO, still to be named, will get five deputy muckety-mucks to boss around, and the buck, as it were, will stop with the whole collective bunch.

The plan - despite letting the supervisors off the hook and tying up more taxpayer money in payroll - is, on balance, a good one. Someone in the county needs to have the power and responsibility to bring order to county government, since the supervisors won't.

But open-government advocates have raised a valid concern.

Under the old regime, in which the supervisors made all the decisions, the public was guaranteed some knowledge of what was going on. That's because the supes are subject to the state's Brown Act, which requires elected officials' meetings to be open to the public.

But a CEO isn't an elected official. Nor are deputy muckety-mucks.

They're bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can get together whenever they want, without telling anyone, and without being open to the public.

And a lack of public scrutiny tends to lead to increased corruption.

The supes assure us this is not a problem. They even got the county counsel to draw up a report explaining exactly how the CEO will be subject to public scrutiny.

There's just one problem: The report's been marked "confidential," so none of us can see it.

How's that for open government?

The counsel explains that this is just standard process, attorney-client privilege and whatnot. But the "clients" in this case - our supervisors - have the right to waive that privilege. They also have a moral obligation to let the public know what they're up to.

This is especially true because the supes will be evaluating the counsel's report for the next two weeks, before voting on a package of openness requirements for the CEO-ocracy.

The public deserves to see the report that will be the basis of their decision. And the supes' willingness to disclose the report will be a good measure of how serious - or not - they are about keeping county government honest.