Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

Contra Costa DA Becton begins next phase of criminal justice reform efforts with Vera Institute of Justice

By 1 Comment

Program promotes racial equity in prosecution and reducing the use of jails; only one of seven DA’s offices in the nation; will host six weekly podcast-styled video discussions beginning Wednesday

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Office of the District Attorney, Contra Costa County

Martinez, Calif. – Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton announced, Monday the next phase of work with the Vera Institute of Justice. The DA’s Office first partnered with Vera in 2018 to take a critical look at the inner workings of the office through a data driven focus. Vera’s Reshaping Prosecution program offers reform minded prosecutors to opportunity to analyze their own data, policies, and practices with a lens toward reducing racial disparities and mass incarceration, delivering justice, and pursuing public safety.

According to the organization’s website, “Vera is partnering with prosecutors to put their campaign promises into action as concrete, data-informed policies and practices.”

The website continues with, “Across the country empowered communities have demanded a new approach to criminal justice by electing prosecutors committed to change. Standing on forward-looking platforms including promises of bail reform, diversion, and ending mass incarceration, a new generation of prosecutors in Chicago, Philadelphia, Jacksonville, Orlando, Contra Costa, Denver, St. Louis and elsewhere are part of a small but growing cadre who understand what many Americans have also learned: that ‘tough on crime’ does not equal public safety.”

According to the organization’s Facebook page, it was founded in 1961 and “works to secure equal justice, end mass incarceration, and strengthen families and communities across America.”

The DA’s Office has shared data from the Office’s case management system from the time period of January 1, 2014 to July 30, 2019. Once the data and policy analysis are complete, Vera will present their findings and recommendations to DA Becton. After the findings have been analyzed internally and shared officewide, they will be publicly released.

“Our community is calling for a more transparent and equitable criminal justice system. I am excited to partner with Vera to work on those long-standing issues, especially around the analysis of our data. Data from any law enforcement agency tells a story,” Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton stated. “We need this data analysis to improve our communication with the public and our law enforcement partners. As a former judge and now district attorney, I understand the systemic issues in our county with racial disparities. We must think critically about how best to improve our operations and work with our law enforcement partners to ensure our prosecutions are just. With this partnership with Vera, we can shine a light on our practices and make informed decisions to better protect the public.”

Contra Costa is one of only seven prosecution offices nationwide participating in the Reshaping Prosecution program. Each office will have a designated internal working group that will reflect on a range of topics including: a deeper dive into the historical role of the prosecutor, working with your community and exploring what justice looks like, and discussions around building group cohesiveness to lay the foundation for successful implementation of reforms.

“Vera applauds District Attorney Becton’s commitment to racial-equity and transparency,” said Jamila Hodge, Director of the Reshaping Prosecution Program at the Vera Institute of Justice. “Our partnership will address the disparities that have impacted Black, brown, and Indigenous communities in Contra Costa County by providing analysis and policy solutions, critical steps to reduce harm, rebuild trust, and deliver the safety and justice our communities deserve.”

Training and exposure to different ways of thinking is also an important component of the partnership. For six weeks, beginning October 7th, Vera will host a weekly podcast-styled video discussion series focused on why racial equity is integral to the prosecutorial role, and how prosecutors can center racial equity in decision making. The series will feature criminal justice experts from across the country who will cover a range of topics including: Origins of the Criminal Justice System; Centering Human Dignity; Accountability vs. Punishment; Restorative Justice; Community Well-Being; and Action Steps for Prosecutors.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

Glazer’s bill allowing Contra Costa half-cent sales tax increase signed by governor

By Leave a Comment

Votes for Measure X will now count; sales taxes in the county could go to 10.75%, highest in California; Glazer’s second tax increase measure on November ballot

State Senator Steve Glazer. From his campaign Facebook page.

By Allen Payton

On the last day possible, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a variety of bills on Thursday, including SB1349 by State Senator Steve Glazer, allowing a countywide half-cent sales tax increase which is designated Measure X on the November ballot in Contra Costa. The votes on that measure will now count. Had the governor vetoed the bill the votes would not have counted. He also had the option of not signing it by the Sept. 30th deadline and the bill would have become law.

The ballot language for Measure X reads as follows: “To keep Contra Costa’s regional hospital open and staffed; fund community health centers; provide timely fire and emergency response; support crucial safety-net services; invest in early childhood services; protect vulnerable populations; and for other essential county services, shall the Contra Costa County measure levying a ½ cent sales tax, exempting food sales, providing an estimated $81,000,000 annually for 20 years that the State cannot take, with funds benefitting County residents, be adopted?”

Glazer introduced the bill in the State Senate on February 21, 2020 focusing on “State responsibility area fire prevention fees”. He changed it to, “Transactions and use taxes: County of Contra Costa” on April 8, 2020 after the March Primary election was decided and the countywide additional half-cent sales tax increase for transportation failed.

It took some maneuvering in the State Senate Governance & Finance Committee to get the bill to the floor for a full vote. The bill first failed on a 3-2-2 vote on May 21. A motion to reconsider the bill then passed 7-0 on May 28 and a final committee vote was held on June 3 with just enough to pass by a vote of 4-2-1. It then passed the full Senate on June 11 by a vote of 27-11-2 with both Glazer and State Senator Nancy Skinner, who represents all of West County, voting in favor.

In the Assembly, Member Tim Grayson carried the bill which passed 48-23-8, with the other three Assemblymembers representing Contra Costa County, Jim Frazier, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and Buffy Wicks not voting.

The Contra Costa County Public Managers Association was coordinating the effort to get the bill passed and the City Managers were the ones who endorsed it, not the various city councils.

The state has a sales tax rate of 7.25%, decreased from 7.5% on January 1, 2017, and state law prevented counties from charging more than 9.25% prior to the bill becoming law. That includes the half-cent sales tax for BART and the additional half-cent sales tax for transportation through the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. That leaves 1% remaining by which the county can increase its sales tax.

The Board of Supervisors considered a sales tax increase that would have only applied to unincorporated areas outside the 19 city limits. But that was quietly set aside.

According to the Senate Governance & Finance Committee Bill Analysis, the earlier version of the bill, that passed the Senate the first time, would have allowed a possible increase in the countywide sales tax rate to 11.75% in cities that already have a 1% sales tax such as in Antioch, and as high as 12.25% in El Cerrito which has a 1.5% city sales tax. However, the governor’s office said that went too far and the final bill was scaled back.

California’s sales tax rate is high compared to other states, especially when incorporating locally imposed district taxes. Tax experts argue that sales and use taxes are regressive, meaning that the tax incidence falls more on low-income individuals than high-income individuals because those of lesser means generally spend a greater percentage of their income on taxable sales, instead of intangible products or services which are not taxed.

By removing the current Contra Costa Transportation Authority and BART taxes as counting against the cap, in the final version of SB 1349, which passed the Senate the second time and signed by Newsom, allows an additional 1% of room for the county and each of its 19 cities to impose another district of up to 1% in sales tax. If voters approve the 1/2% allowed under Measure X, when it states that existing taxes do not count against the cap, the combined rate would increase to 8.75% countywide, plus any current city rates. The bill also grants Contra Costa County an additional authorization for another 1/2% sales tax increase, such as for the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, thereby boosting the maximum countywide rate to 9.25%, plus any current city rates.

That could result in a rate as high as 10.75% in the City of El Cerrito, where an additional 1.5% rate currently applies, and a 10.25% rate in the City of Antioch where they have a current 1% sales tax.

Glazer had the support of his bill from the California Labor Federation, California Professional Firefighters, California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 21, Office and Professional Employees International Union Local 29, and SEIU California.

Those opposed to SB1349 were the Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers, California Taxpayers Association, Contra Costa County Taxpayers Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund.

In spite of campaigning as a fiscal conservative, touting a hold the line approach to new taxes, this is Glazer’s second measure on the November ballot that will increase taxes if passed. The other is statewide Prop. 19, which will increase taxes on inherited homes or commercial property. According to Ballotpedia, “The ballot measure would eliminate the parent-to-child and grandparent-to-grandchild exemption in cases where the child or grandchild does not use the inherited property as their principal residence, such as using a property a rental house or a second home. When the inherited property is used as the recipient’s principal residence but has a market value above $1 million, an upward adjustment in assessed value would occur. The ballot measure would also apply these rules to certain farms. Beginning on February 16, 2023, the taxable value of an inherited principal residential property would be adjusted each year at a rate equal to the change in the California House Price Index.”

Following is the Legislative Counsel’s Digest and text of Glazer’s bill:

Senate Bill No. 1349

CHAPTER 369

An act to amend Section 29140 of the Public Utilities Code, and to amend Section 7291 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to taxation.

[ Approved by Governor  September 30, 2020. Filed with Secretary of State  September 30, 2020. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 1349, Glazer. Transactions and use taxes: County of Contra Costa.

Existing law authorizes various specified cities and counties, subject to certain limitations and approval requirements, to levy a transactions and use tax for general or specific purposes, in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the Transactions and Use Tax Law. A provision of the Transactions and Use Tax Law prohibits the combined rate of all taxes that may be imposed in accordance with that law in a county from exceeding 2%.

Existing law authorizes the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to impose a transactions and use tax for the support of countywide transportation programs at a rate of no more than 0.5% that, in combination with other transactions and use taxes, exceeds the above-described combined rate limit of 2%, if certain requirements are met, including a requirement that the ordinance proposing the transactions and use tax be submitted to, and approved by, the voters. Existing law repeals this authorization on December 31, 2020, if an ordinance proposing a transactions and use tax has not been approved by that date.

Existing law, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Act, creates the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, which comprises a territory that includes the County of Contra Costa, and, among other things, authorizes the board of directors of the district to impose transactions and use taxes in conformity with the Transactions and Use Tax Law for specified purposes, subject to periodic legislative review and amendment, as provided.

This bill would provide that, notwithstanding the combined rate limit under the Transactions and Use Tax Law, neither a transaction and use tax rate imposed in the County of Contra Costa by the transportation authority under the above-described authority nor a transactions and use tax rate imposed by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, as specified, will be considered for purposes of that combined rate limit within the County of Contra Costa. The bill would declare that the changes made with regard to taxes imposed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for countywide transportation programs are declaratory of existing law.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Contra Costa.

<hr size=1 width=1209 style=’width:907.1pt’ noshade style=’color:#333333′>

BILL TEXT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

Section 29140 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:

29140.

(a) The board shall, by ordinance, impose transactions and use taxes in conformity with Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for the purposes specified in Sections 29142 and 29142.2, subject to periodic legislative review and amendment.

(b) (1) Notwithstanding Section 7251.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, a transactions and use tax rate imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) on or before January 1, 2020, that applies within the County of Alameda shall not be considered for purposes of the combined rate limit within the County of Alameda established by that section.

(2) Notwithstanding Section 7251.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, a transactions and use tax rate imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) on or before the effective date of the act adding this subdivision that applies within the County of Contra Costa shall not be considered for purposes of the combined rate limit within the County of Contra Costa established by that section.

SEC. 2.

Section 7291 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is amended to read:

7291.

(a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority may impose a transactions and use tax for the support of countywide transportation programs at a rate of no more than 0.5 percent that would, in combination with all taxes imposed pursuant to Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251), exceed the limit established in Section 7251.1, if all of the following requirements are met:

(1) The Contra Costa Transportation Authority adopts an ordinance proposing the transactions and use tax by any applicable voting approval requirement.

(2) The ordinance proposing the transactions and use tax is submitted to the electorate and is approved by the voters voting on the ordinance pursuant to Article XIII C of the California Constitution.

(3) The transactions and use tax conforms to the Transactions and Use Tax Law, Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251), other than Section 7251.1.

(b) (1) Notwithstanding Section 7251.1, a transactions and use tax rate imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall not be considered for purposes of the combined rate limit established by Section 7251.1.

(2) This subdivision does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.

SEC. 3.

The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique fiscal pressures being experienced in the County of Contra Costa.

 

Contra Costa DA Becton won’t prosecute certain first-time criminals

By 1 Comment

Including drug offenders arrested with small amounts or for other crimes such as shoplifting, petty theft, disorderly conduct   

To “divert low-level recreational users out of the criminal justice system and into health care system”

“Reducing strain in the courts” at presiding judge’s request

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Office of the District Attorney, Contra Costa County

Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton announced last week, misdemeanor filing considerations for the DA’s Office regarding . Originally initiated as a pilot, the considerations are now formal policy for the Office. The DA’s Office will no longer file charges against most people arrested or cited solely for the possession of small amounts of drugs. The idea is to divert low-level recreational users out of the criminal justice system and into the health care system with the goals of both reducing the strain in the courts and on law enforcement, and also by providing treatment options for the user.

Last year District Attorney Becton and Public Defender Robin Lipetzky were contacted by the presiding judge of the court who stressed the need to reduce the significant backlog of low-level, non-violent misdemeanors in the court system. The backlog of cases was slowing down court operations and proving to be an immense burden on the budgets of various law enforcement agencies and the courts.

Furthermore, there have been significant changes in the laws governing personal drug use that have changed the dynamics of prosecuting low-level drug cases. The aim of these considerations is to stop chronic patterns of arrest and to connect individuals to community based behavioral health services. For a first-time offender we will refer the person to health care services in our community. The policy allows the DA’s Office to focus our efforts on cases that may pose significant public safety concerns such as criminal street gangs, drug dealers, violent criminals, and cases involving firearms.

“When I took Office, I realized we had to change our perspective on filing cases, especially low-level drug cases. From my experience as a judge I saw first-hand how individuals were cycling through our system. Now as the District Attorney, I worked with several law enforcement partners throughout the county to build a plan and gain consensus on how best to proceed with these types of cases. We cannot prosecute ourselves out of this growing trend of low-level offenses being submitted to our Office for a filing decision,” said DA Becton.

Prosecutors will use their discretion on these low-level non-violent offenses to determine if criminal charges are appropriate. Pre-filing diversion is also available for individuals in lieu of a formal criminal complaint.

DA Becton stated, “As I do with all of my Office’s policies, I will periodically review this policy and work with my justice system colleagues to ensure its effectiveness and to modify it when necessary.”

In several situations, the policy may not apply. The exceptions include: the person has been arrested on three previous occasions in the past year for a misdemeanor drug offense, the theft is more than $300 in value, or the subject is on probation.

Misdemeanor Filing Considerations

FIRST-TIME AND STAND-ALONE OFFENSES

For the offenses below, do not file a case predicated upon these statutes if the individual is a first-time offender or this is a stand-alone charge. Consider use of CAPS, Infracting, or a Probation Violation as appropriate.

If an individual becomes a repeat offender, review all cases to include any previously unfiled incidents.

Note: For any of the below offenses, these considerations do not apply if:

  • There are multiple violations (2 or more within a 12-month period)
  • Theft cases: amount of stolen items is $300 or more
  • Defendant is currently on probation
  • Low net weight cases of controlled substances will generally not be filed unless there are three or more misdemeanor drug offenses or another qualifying exception within a 12-month period

The misdemeanor charges these considerations encompass are as follows:

STATUTE                 NAME OF STATUTE

BP 4060                      Possession of Controlled Substance

BP 4140                      Possession of Hypodermic or Syringe

HS 11357                    Possession of Marijuana

HS 11364                    Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

HS 11350                    Possession of Controlled Substance

HS 11377                    Possession of Controlled Substance

HS 11550                    Under the Influence of Controlled Substance

PC 415                        Disturbing the Peace

PC 459.5                     Shoplifting

PC 466                        Possession of Burglar Tools

PC 484                        Petty Theft

PC 602                         Trespass

PC 647(f)                    Disorderly Conduct

PROBATION VIOLATIONS

If an individual is already on Probation, consider electing to file a Probation Violation in Lieu of a new docket. Consult with your supervising DDA as appropriate.

SUSPENDED LICENSES

Infract the below vehicle code offenses. Note: this does not apply to VC 14601.2 and VC 14601.5 offenses.

STATUTE                 NAME OF STATUTE                                              ACTION

VC 12500                    Unlicensed Driver                                                       INFRACT

VC 14601.1                 Non-DUI Suspended or Revoked License                  INFRACT

Contra Costa County now offers free flu shots at COVID testing sites

By Leave a Comment

Starting today, October 1, the County will begin offering free flu shots to people who come in for COVID testing at several testing sites in Contra Costa.

Making flu shots available at COVID testing sites is part of the County’s larger effort to get more people vaccinated before flu season arrives. Contra Costa Health Services will also be hosting a series of free one-day flu vaccination clinics in October.

“We want to make it as easy as possible for people to get their flu shots this year,” said Dr. Chris Farnitano, Contra Costa County’s health officer. “Offering flu vaccine at COVID testing sites will let people cross two things off their to-do list at once.”

With COVID-19 and the upcoming flu season overlapping, county health officials say it’s more important than ever to get vaccinated against influenza this year.

Health officials are worried about a so-called “twindemic” or “double surge” in the coming months where hospitals are overwhelmed by having to care for both flu patients and COVID-19 patients.

Flu vaccination is the best protection against influenza. Another reason to get vaccinated: people can get sick with COVID and the flu at the same time, which may increase the risk they will need hospitalization.

Flu season in the Bay Area tends to peak in January or February, but it can be unpredictable – which is why it’s best to get vaccinated as soon as possible.

“Getting a flu shot is one thing we all can do to ease our minds during COVID,” said Dr. Farnitano. “Getting vaccinated this year means having one less thing to worry about.”

Influenza and COVID are respiratory illnesses with similar symptoms, such as congestion, cough and fever. People who have these symptoms when flu season arrives should be tested for COVID to help ensure a correct medical diagnosis. The County offers free COVID testing to residents.

There is currently no vaccine for COVID. The best way to prevent the spread of COVID is to practice physical distancing, wear face coverings when around people who don’t live with you, wash your hands regularly and stay home if you’re sick. These measures also help reduce the spread of the flu as well.

County health officials also recommend that essential workers and others with frequent close contact with people outside their own household get tested once a month for COVID, even if they don’t have symptoms.

A list of testing site offering free flu shots can be found on our Get Tested page. There are currently five testing locations offering flu vaccine: Antioch, two in Concord, Richmond and San Ramon. We expect to make flu shots available at more testing sites in the near future.

For more information about influenza, visit cchealth.org/flu.

 

Governor Newsom signs bills ending police chokeholds, implementing other reforms

By Leave a Comment

Main graphic by Carotid Restraint Training Institute.

Requiring independent investigations of officer-involved shootings; reforming juvenile justice and probation systems to aid in rehabilitation and reentry

SACRAMENTO – In the wake of nationwide demonstrations against structural racism and systemic injustice, Governor Gavin Newsom on Wednesday signed a series of bills into law initiating critical criminal justice, juvenile justice and policing reforms in California. Delivering on his promise this summer to sign a bill ending the use of the carotid restraint, Governor Newsom signed AB 1196 by Assemblymember Mike Gipson (D-Carson) which bans the practice statewide. The maneuver, known as a chokehold, was banned by District Attorney Diana Becton for her Investigative Unit in June. (See related article)

Newsom also signed AB 1506 by Assemblymember Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) requiring the California Attorney General to conduct investigations into officer-involved shootings of unarmed individuals that result in death. He also took action on legislation that reforms the juvenile justice system to put more emphasis on rehabilitation and education, as well as creating a more just probation system.

“Americans across the country took to the streets this summer rightfully demanding more and better of our criminal justice system – and of ourselves,” said Governor Newsom. “We heard those calls for action loud and clear and today are advancing reforms to improve policing practices by ending the carotid hold and requiring independent investigations in officer-involved shootings. We are also taking important steps to break the school-to-prison pipeline. Still, we can and must do more. Working with our youth, faith and community leaders, law enforcement, the Legislature and countless others demanding change, my Administration remains committed to the important work ahead to make our criminal and juvenile justice systems fairer and safer for all Californians.”

Today’s action builds on Governor Newsom’s record enacting major change on criminal justice reform during his first years in office – from enacting one of the nation’s strongest police use-of-force standards, to putting a moratorium on the death penalty and shutting down California’s execution chamber, to closing prisons. The Administration will continue to work with the Legislature on additional reforms, including efforts to increase transparency in peace officer records and broader decertification measures to create accountability for officers with a history of misconduct.

Governor Newsom also took action today on important juvenile justice reforms. Building on the Governor’s commitment to end juvenile imprisonment as we know it, he signed several bills to support young people coming out of the criminal justice system and to disrupt the school-to-prison pipeline. SB 823 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review takes the first, formal step of closing the Division of Juvenile Justice, which will help to provide youth rehabilitative services closer to home.

Other bills the Governor signed today that support youth include AB 901 by Assemblymember Mike Gipson (D-Carson), which will end the practice of referring youth who are having problems at school to probation programs. Additionally, SB 203 by Senator Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) requires that children under age 17 have an opportunity to consult with legal counsel before interrogation, and SB 1290 by Senator Maria Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) will cancel certain fees assessed on juvenile offenders and their families.

Finally, Governor Newsom signed AB 1950 by Assemblymember Sydney Kamlager (D-Los Angeles), which caps probation terms to a maximum of one year for misdemeanor offenses and two years for felonies.

Governor Newsom also signed:

  • AB 646 by Assemblymember Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) – Elections: voter eligibility.
  • AB 732 by Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) – County jails: prisons: incarcerated pregnant persons.
  • AB 846 by Assemblymember Autumn Burke (D-Inglewood) and Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) – Public employment: public officers or employees declared by law to be peace officers.
  • AB 1304 by Assemblymember Marie Waldron (R-Escondido) – California MAT Re-Entry Incentive Program. A signing message can be found here.
  • AB 1775 by Assemblymember Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. (D-Los Angeles) – False reports and harassment.
  • AB 2321 by Assemblymember Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. (D-Los Angeles) – Juvenile court records: access.
  • AB 2425 by Assemblymember Mark Stone (D-Scotts Valley) – Juvenile police records.
  • AB 2512 by Assemblymember Mark Stone (D-Scotts Valley) – Death penalty: person with an intellectual disability.
  • AB 2606 by Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) – Criminal justice: supervised release file.
  • AB 3043 by Assemblymember Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. (D-Los Angeles) – Corrections: confidential calls.
  • AB 3234 by Assemblymember Philip Ting (D-San Francisco) – Public Safety. A signing message can be found here.
  • SB 480 by Senator Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera) – Law enforcement uniforms.
  • SB 1126 by Senator Brian W. Jones (R-Santee) – Juvenile court records.
  • SB 1196 by Senator Thomas Umberg (D-Santa Ana) – Price gouging.

 

Supervisors pass third COVID-19 era ordinance prohibiting residential and small business evictions, rent hikes over landlords’ protests

By Leave a Comment

Approve consent decree for enhanced psychiatric and medical services for county jail inmates

By Daniel Borsuk

With the COVID-19 pandemic having caused 16,896 cases and 209 deaths in Contra Costa County since March, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday passed its third temporary ordinance banning evictions of commercial and residential tenants on Tuesday, the same day the county’s Public Health Department quietly announced its promotion from Purple ranking to Red, allowing more businesses to open.

According to the staff report on the agenda item, the urgency ordinance authorizes a temporary prohibition on certain “at-fault” evictions of residential tenants in the county and continues a temporary prohibition on certain evictions of small-business commercial tenants in Contra Costa County impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Supervisors had previously approved similar temporary ordinances on April 21 and July 14 and voted unanimously to enact a new ordinance that would stay in effect through January 31, 2021.  On a separate vote, 4-1, supervisors rejected inserting additional protections to tenants that Supervisor John Gioia wanted to be included in the ordinance.

“I wanted broader protections,” said Supervisor Gioia of Richmond who cast the one dissenting vote.  “I wanted to limit evictions to health and safety.  There are landlords who don’t exercise good faith behavior.”

But Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, speaking on behalf of both landlords and tenants. wanted to monitor properties that have tenants who don’t put out trash for collection or keep unsafe rental property.

“I am willing to go through January 31, but I am tired of accommodating the bad actors. I won’t support an ordinance that bars landlords from entering property for any reason,” said Mitchoff.

At the same time, the supervisor from Pleasant Hill scolded landlords who do not accept a tenant’s payment for rent. “That is not OK,” she said.

While supervisors listened to a number of renters encouraging the supervisors to provide necessary protections during the ongoing pandemic, the elected officials for the first time heard more landlords loudly object to the residential and commercial ordinance under review.

“You’re taking away property owners’ rights,” Concord property owner Blaine Carter protested. “The sky is not falling.  We don’t need to strip away individual property owner rights.”

Concord homeowner Ed White said he could live with the ordinance.  “I work with my tenant,” said White, whose long-term tenant of his three-bedroom house, has been a good occupant even though the tenant had lost their job due to the pandemic.  The tenant has recently been reemployed and is back making monthly rental payments, White said.

“For someone who has been on both sides of this issue, I can support the proposed ordinance,” said District 5 Supervisor Federal Glover of Pittsburg, who is up for re-election Nov. 3 against Contra Costa County Assessor Gus Kramer.

“This is another way to get property into the hands of government,” said landlord Marilyn Blander.  The long-term economic effects will be terrible because government is a terrible way to provide housing.”

PLO Consent Decree for County Jail Inmates OK’d

In another action, supervisors unanimously approved an agreement with the Prison Law Office that will enhance psychiatric and medical services for inmates held at the Martinez Detention Facility and the West County Detention Facility in Richmond.  Four years in negotiations, the PLO-Contra Costa County consent decree will be in effect for five years.  The consent decree can be mutually ended.

It will cost the county $43.7 million a year to provide improved mental and medical care and pharmaceutical services to prisoners housed in the two county detention facilities.  Those costs reflect the addition of the eventual hiring of 125 fulltime Health Services Department employees and 63 fulltime equivalent Sheriff’s Department employees.

So far, the county has hired 42 fulltime equivalent Health Department and 41 fulltime Sheriff’s Department employees.

“This is a roadmap for positive change, one that moves the county forward in further improving the physical space and services provided” said Board Chair Candace Andersen.  “We want to stop those with mental illness from repeatedly cycling through our jails.  If we can provide them with much needed treatment while incarcerated and ensure that they have supportive services upon re-entry to the community, their lives will substantially improve.”

Prison Law Office Executive Director Donald Spector called and thanked the supervisors for approving the five-year consent decree.

 

House passes McNerney-Latta electric grid security legislation

By Leave a Comment

Rep. Jerry McNerney

Washington, DC – On Tuesday, September 29, 2020,, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 359, the Enhancing Grid Security through Public-Private Partnerships Act, and H.R. 360, the Cyber Sense Act – two critical bills introduced by Congressmen Jerry McNerney (CA-09) and Bob Latta (OH-05) which would bolster America’s electric infrastructure by encouraging coordination between the Department of Energy (DOE) and electric utilities.

“It is more important than ever that Congress pursue policies to support our grid infrastructure and secure it against potential physical and cyber threats,” said Congressman McNerney. “These bills will not only strengthen the electric utility system, they will also help build partnerships between DOE and industry. I’m proud that they have passed the House and I thank my friend and co-sponsor, Congressman Latta, for his partnership on this important issue.”

“Over the last quarter century, we have seen incredible changes to the way we communicate with the rest of the world and the way we engage in commerce,” said Congressman Latta. “Along with these changes, we have also seen innovation in the technologies that power society, resulting in a more efficient and streamlined electric grid. Unfortunately, the promise of a more interconnected society also means that we must also address the challenges and vulnerabilities that arise with it. I am pleased to see the passage of two bills working to improve our nation’s grid security and resiliency, and I am proud to have led these bills with Congressman McNerney over the past two Congresses.”

H.R. 359 directs DOE to facilitate and encourage public-private partnerships in order to improve cybersecurity of electric utilities. The legislation would improve sharing of best practices and data collection, along with providing training and technical assistance to electric utilities in order to address and mitigate cybersecurity risks.

H.R. 360 would create a voluntary Department of Energy ‘Cyber Sense’ program that would identify and promote cyber-secure products for use in the bulk-power system. The bill also establishes a testing process for the products, along with a reporting process of cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and it would require the Secretary of Energy to keep a related database on the products. This would aid electric utilities that are evaluating products and their potential to cause harm to the electric grid.

Congressmen McNerney and Latta co-chair the Grid Innovation Caucus, which was founded to provide a forum for discussing solutions to the many challenges facing the grid, and to educate Members of Congress and staff about the importance of the electric grid with relation to the economy, energy security, and advanced technologies being utilized to enhance grid capabilities.

 

Contra Costa COVID: Indoor dining, churches, theaters up to 25% capacity or 100 people whichever is less

By Leave a Comment

Gyms up to 10%; indoor retail and malls up to 50%; thanks to improving situation; nail salons, massage services back indoors

Thanks to recent progress being made in the fight against COVID-19 in Contra Costa, indoor restaurants, gyms, movie theaters, massage parlors and places of worship may now open with restrictions in the county.

The changes come after the county qualified to move into the less restrictive red tier (“substantial”) of the state’s four-tiered, color-coded reopening system today. Contra Costa had been in the state’s purple or “widespread” tier, the most restrictive tier.

Moving into the red tier means the following sectors can reopen with modifications:

  • Places of worship, restaurants, movie theaters and museums can be operated indoors at 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is less
  • Gyms can reopen indoors at 10% capacity
  • All personal care services, including massage, can move indoors
  • Indoor shopping malls can operate at 50% maximum occupancy (instead of 25%). Food courts can also open following the state’s guidelines for restaurants.
  • Indoor retail stores can now operate at 50% capacity (instead of 25%)

“The credit really belongs to the residents of Contra Costa, who have adapted to the new normal and modified their lifestyles to reduce the spread of COVID in the county,” said Dr. Chris Farnitano, the county’s health officer.

Elementary and secondary schools can reopen for in-person instruction on Oct. 13 if the county remains the red tier for two more weeks. Currently, elementary schools can apply for a waiver from the health officer to reopen.

In order to move into the more permissive red tier, the county had to see average case rates drop below 7 per 100,000 people and testing positivity rates dip below 8%. For the past two weeks, Contra Costa has met those benchmarks. As of Tuesday, the case rate was 6.7 per 100,000 people and the testing positivity rate was 3.7%.

Dr. Farnitano noted that Contra Costa continued to see its COVID numbers improve or remain steady even after the Labor Day weekend, suggesting fewer people engaged in risky behaviors like large social gatherings compared to the previous holiday weekends.

Health officials caution that COVID is still circulating in the community and people should continue to take all the same precautions health officials have been advising for months: wear face coverings in public, maintain physical distancing, wash hands frequently and stay home if you’re sick.

In addition, health officials encourage essential workers and people with lots of close contacts outside their own household to get tested for COVID at least monthly.

Businesses and other organizations should review their applicable industry guidance for reopening safely from the state. For more information about COVID-19 in Contra Costa, visit cchealth.org/coronavirus.

 

Glazer, Skinner, Bauer-Kahan vote for, Newsom signs bill requiring California to house inmates based on gender identity

By Leave a Comment

Frazier, Grayson, Wicks don’t vote; SB 132 requires Dep’t. of Corrections to house transgender, gender-nonconforming and intersex people based on their choice.

State Senator Steve Glazer (D-7-Orinda)

By Allen Payton

Governor Gavin Newsom on Sunday, Sept. 26 signed a package of pro-LGBTQ+ bills, including SB132 requiring the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to house transgender, gender-nonconforming and intersex (TGI) individuals in a manner that matches their gender identity while supporting health and safety.

SB 132 also requires CDCR to house people according to their own sense of where they will be safest and to record the individual’s self-reported gender identity, gender pronouns and honorifics throughout an inmate’s term.

State Senators Steve Glazer (D-7, Orinda) and Nancy Skinner (D-9, Oakland) were joined by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-16, San Ramon), who all represent portions of Contra Costa County, in voting for the bill. Assemblymembers Jim Frazier (D-11, Discovery Bay), Tim Grayson (D-14, Concord), and Buffy Wicks (D-15, Oakland) who also represent portions of the county, did not vote.

State Senator Nancy Skinner (D-9, Oakland)

The bill was introduced by State Senator Scott Weiner (D-11, San Francisco) who also authored the controversial SB145 regarding non-regular sexual intercourse between youth ages 14-17 and those as much as 10 years older. Glazer, Skinner, Bauer-Kahan and Wicks voted for that bill, as well. While Frazier and Grayson didn’t vote on that bill, either. (See related article)

Newsom also signed other LGBTQ+ related legislation including a measure to track the effects of COVID-19 on the community, and a bill establishing the Transgender and Wellness Equity Fund.

Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D16, San Ramon)

Included in the package of bills signed into law on Sunday is SB 932 also by Wiener, which aligns with emergency regulations announced by the California Department of Public Health in July requiring better and more timely collection and reporting of communicable disease data from providers and laboratories on a patient’s gender identity and sexual orientation. This legislation will provide public health officials with more information on patients who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, which is essential to addressing health inequities and designing public health interventions that help California’s diverse communities. Glazer, Skinner Bauer-Kahan and Grayson vote for the bill. Frazier and Wicks didn’t cast votes.

AB 2218 by Assemblymember Miguel Santiago (D-53, Los Angeles) establishes the Transgender Wellness and Equity Fund. The Fund will assist organizations serving people that identify as transgender, gender nonconforming, or intersex (TGI), and help create or fund TGI-specific housing programs and partnerships with hospitals, health care clinics and other medical providers to provide TGI-focused health care. Glazer, Skinner, Bauer-Kahan and Grayson voted for the bill, while Frazier and Wicks didn’t vote.

The Governor also signed SB 1255 by Senator Lena Gonzalez (D-33, Long Beach) and the Senate Committee on Insurance requiring insurance companies not decline policies for individuals because of their HIV status. Glazer, Skinner, Bauer-Kahan and Grayson voted for the bill. Frazier and Wicks, again didn’t vote.