Contra Costa Herald

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

Assemblywoman Bauer-Kahan, Supervisor Burgis introduce bill targeting illegal dumping

By 1 Comment

Supervisor Diane Burgis stand in front of a truck with nine yards of garbage illegally dumped on roads in the county during press conference in Antioch on Thursday, Feb. 17, 2022. Photo by Allen D. Payton

AB 2374 increases fines, adds teeth to state law on illegal dumping 

At a press conference on Thursday, Feb. 17, 2022, in Antioch, Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (AD16-D-Orinda), District 3 Supervisor Diane Burgis, the bill’s sponsor, and local county leaders announced the introduction of AB 2374. Entitled “Crimes against public health and safety: illegal dumping”, the bill was introduced in response to the rampant illegal dumping plaguing communities across California.

“The illegal dumping of trash, furniture, mattresses, appliances, and toxic materials is out of control in both our rural and urban areas – it isn’t just unsightly, it is putting the health of our communities and environment at risk,” said Bauer-Kahan. “Every Californian deserves the right to live in clean, garbage-free neighborhoods.”

“We started this out when we were trying to figure out how to handle it. That’s when we learned of the multiple agencies each responding,” said Burgis. “We formed a Think Tank of agencies in the county, plus East Bay Regional Park and our garbage haulers. And it’s expensive.”

“What people were doing was instead of taking it to the landfill or transfer station, they were just dumping it on the side of the road,” she stated. Pointing to the truck filled with items picked up along East County roads that was at the press conference Burgis said, “That’s nine yards, but they usually pick up 15 yards of large and small items in East County, each week.”

This bill builds upon previous legislative efforts of Bauer-Kahan and Contra Costa and Alameda Counties in 2019. These efforts provided funding to the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa to establish a pilot program for additional enforcement of illegal dumping laws in both counties. This program has been successful, but more tools in the arsenal to fight illegal dumping are necessary. Policies like increased enforcement, street lighting, and cameras throughout the East Bay region have also helped, however, California still lacks sufficient penalties to deter people from this harmful behavior.

AB 2374 raises fines on illegal dumping of commercial quantities up to $5,000 upon first conviction, up to $10,000 on a second conviction, and up to $20,000 on third or subsequent conviction. Additionally, this bill will give judges discretion to require the convicted to pay for the removal of their illegal dumping, suspend the business license of any individual convicted of dumping waste connected to their business, and allow for that person’s name and name of the business to be publicly displayed as convicted of illegal dumping.

“We want everyone to be doing the right thing, but there’s a limit to what we can do to educate and incentivize good behavior,” said Burgis. “It’s important for the public to understand that dumping has an impact on the quality of our drinking water, and that it disproportionately impacts marginalized communities. I applaud Bauer-Kahan for her efforts to empower us with the tools we need at the local level to start getting greater control of this problem.”

Contra Costa County District 5 Supervisor Federal Glover, who also serves on the County’s Illegal Dumping Ad Hoc Committee, added, “Residents deserve beautiful land and clean neighborhoods to live and work in. We want to be sure that everyone, including commercial businesses, hear loud and clear that they cannot illegally dump in our community without hefty fines, hence the need for this legislation.”

“Illegal dumping is a plague on our entire state – impacting our most urban, suburban, and rural communities. In a pilot project in my Supervisorial District alone we’ve removed nearly 1,200 tons of trash from our streets. This legislation provides needed enforcement authority to combat illegal dumping and blight in our neighborhoods, while alleviating the unfair burden of clean up from residents and local businesses,” said Alameda County Supervisor and Board Vice President Nate Miley.

“By upping the fines and providing tools for the courts to publicly hold violators accountable for committing these acts, we disincentivize actors and create public knowledge on who not to work with,” Bauer-Kahan added. “I want to thank Contra Costa County for bringing this bill idea to my attention and look forward to getting it implemented statewide.”

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

 

Candidate filing period for June 7 Primary Election begins Monday

By Leave a Comment

For county DA, sheriff, supervisor, Superior Court judges and other offices, U.S. Senate, Congress, governor and other statewide offices, and State Assembly

By Dawn Kruger, Civic Outreach/Engagement Specialist, Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department

On Monday, February 14, the June 7, 2022, Candidate Filing Period will begin, and nomination papers will be available for candidates running for Statewide Constitutional offices, County offices, Superior Court judges, United States Senator, United States Representative in Congress and Member of the State Assembly. The nomination period runs through 5:00 pm Friday, March 11, 2022.  A list of offices currently up for election can be found here: https://www.cocovote.us/wp-content/uploads/22Jun07_PositionsUpForElection-1.pdf

Papers for offices that are up for election will be available at the Contra Costa Elections Office, 555 Escobar Street, Martinez.

For further information on the primary election and key dates, visit www.cocovote.us.

With COVID-19 still in play, the Contra Costa Elections Division is asking interested candidates to schedule an appointment through email at candidate.services@vote.cccounty.us or by calling 925-335-7800. Walk-ins are accepted, but subject to the availability of staff. Appointments are available on weekdays from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm. Filing documents and information will be provided to interested constituents at their appointment. The process takes 20 minutes.

All visitors will be asked to check-in at the Elections lobby and will be required to wear a mask and observe social distancing guidelines.

Two more days to offer input on California Citizens Redistricting Commission’s final maps for state districts

By 4 Comments

The commission’s final maps show Contra Costa County divided into Congressional Districts 8, 9 and 10. Source: WeDrawTheLinesCA.org

Divides Contra Costa County in multiple ways, combining portions with communities in other counties as far away as Sonoma and Yolo Counties over 90 miles away

By Allen Payton

On Monday, the 2020 California Citizens Redistricting Commission completed and approved final maps for the state’s Congressional, Senate, Assembly, and Board of Equalization districts that are significantly different than the draft maps presented last month. The new maps, which will be in place and affect elections for the  next 10 years, split up Contra Costa County in multiple ways and combine portions with other counties and communities as much as 93 miles away.

The California Constitution states that public comment shall be taken for at least three days from the date of public display of any final statewide maps. Additionally, the Commission shall not display any other map for public comment during that period. (To offer additional public comment click here)

“We have reached the finish line for the people’s redistricting process in California. When voters approved the Voters FIRST Act, it created a monumental shift in this decennial process,” stated Commission Chair Alicia Fernandez. “As Californians, my colleagues on this Commission and I answered the call to serve for this great state we honor and love. We conclude our map drawing responsibilities with pride in our final product. We started this process leaving politics out of the equation in hopes of achieving fairer and more equitable maps. I think I speak for my colleagues when I say mission accomplished! Thank you to all that participated in this process.”

The Commission drew 4 Board of Equalization districts, 52 Congressional districts, 40 Senatorial districts, and 80 Assembly districts. All districts were drawn within the permissible population deviation.

The commission’s final maps show Contra Costa County divided into State Senate Districts 3, 7 and 9. Source: WeDrawTheLinesCA.org

Maps Split Up Contra Costa County More

While the current maps approved in 2011 divide the county amongst four Congressional, two State Senate and three State Assembly districts, what the Commission did to Contra Costa, this time, was split it up even more into three Congressional, three State Senate, and four Assembly districts.

For the State Senate map, the majority of the county, from Crockett in West County to Antioch in East County is combined with San Leandro, Castro Valley and San Lorenzo in southwest Alameda County. Like the draft maps issued by the Commission in November, the new Senate map includes the Far East County cities of Brentwood and Oakley and communities of Discovery Bay, Byron, Bethel Island and Knightsen in the same district as Vallejo, Napa, Rohnert Park in Sonoma County, over 90 miles away.  In addition, the map combines all of West County with the cities of Berkeley, Oakland and Alameda.

For the State Assembly map, the Commission keeps the county split in four districts keeping Far East County except for Brentwood, in the same district as most of Solano County including Vallejo, Fairfield, Vacaville and Dixon. It keeps most of West County in the same district, except for Crockett, which is included in the same district as Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Concord, Clayton, Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood.

The commission, only split the county amongst three districts for the Congressional map. But it splits up East County into those three, new separate districts by carving out Discovery Bay and Byron and leaving them in the same district as most of San Joaquin County. The proposed final map also combines the southern portion of Antioch, plus Brentwood, Oakley, Bethel Island and Knightsen with Central County, including most of Concord, plus Lamorinda, the San Ramon Valley and a portion of Dublin in the same congressional district. Finally, it splits off the northern portion of Antioch, plus Pittsburg and Bay Point, and includes it in a district with the other part of Concord, plus Martinez, West County cities of Richmond, El Cerrito, San Pablo, Pinole, Hercules and Crockett with most of Solano County.

Independent Commission Creates Maps That Benefit Democrats

The place of residence of any incumbent or political candidate may not be considered in the creation of a map, and districts may not be drawn for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against an incumbent, political candidate, or political party.

However, according to a news report by the left-leaning Politico, “California’s new congressional map boosts Democrats” in their “uphill quest to maintain their minuscule House majority”. The new lines “create more challenging districts for Republican incumbents without substantially undermining the prospects of vulnerable Democrats.” The “map could point to Democrats holding ground or picking up seats.”

The commission’s final maps show Contra Costa divided into Assembly Districts 11, 14, 15 and 16. Source: WeDrawTheLinesCA.org

Shape Files/Equivalency Files/Stats and Map Viewer: https://www.wedrawthelinesca.org/final_maps

In accordance with the California Constitution, the Commission followed these criteria, in this order, to draw district maps:

  1. Districts must be of equal population to comply with the U.S. Constitution.
  2. Districts must comply with the Voting Rights Act to ensure that minorities have an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.
  3. Districts must be drawn contiguously, so that all parts of the district are connected to each other.
  4. Districts must minimize the division of cities, counties, neighborhoods and communities of interest to the extent possible.
  5. Districts should be geographically compact: such that nearby areas of population are not bypassed for a more distant population. This requirement refers to density, not shape. Census blocks cannot be split.
  6. Where practicable each Senate District should be comprised of two complete and adjacent Assembly Districts, and Board of Equalization districts should be comprised of 10 complete and adjacent State Senate Districts.

The last of the criteria makes sense, as there are twice as many Assembly districts as Senatorial districts, and the Commission could have simply divided each Senatorial district into two. But they chose not to follow it when drawing the new maps.

Additional Commission Meetings

The Commission is continuing to hold meetings Sunday and next Monday and accepting additional public comments on the final maps. At the start of Tuesday’s meeting, Chair Fernandez announced that the meetings scheduled for tomorrow (Wednesday) and Thursday, as shown on the Commission’s website, have been cancelled.

December 26, 2021 CRC Business Meeting – 2020 Citizens Redistricting Commission Meeting – 11:00 A.M. – 1:00 P.M. daily or upon conclusion of business  Public Input Form

December 27, 2021 CRC Business Meeting – 2020 Citizens Redistricting Commission Meeting – 11:00 A.M. – 1:00 P.M. daily or upon conclusion of business  Public Input Form

Background on Redistricting and Commission

Every 10 years, after the federal government publishes updated census information, California must redraw the boundaries of its electoral districts so that the state’s population is evenly allocated among the new districts.

In 2008, California voters passed the Voters First Act, authorizing the creation of the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw new State Senate, State Assembly, and State Board of Equalization district lines. In 2010, the Voters First Act for Congress gave the Commission the responsibility of drawing new Congressional districts following every census.

For more information, please visit www.WeDrawTheLinesCA.org. To offer additional comments to the Commission about the proposed final maps visit www.wedrawthelinesca.org/contact by Thursday, Dec. 23 at 5:00 p.m.

Ninth Circuit agrees to rehear lawsuit ruling Newsom unconstitutionally closed private schools during pandemic

By 1 Comment

Vacates court’s three judge panel ruling, will hear en banc

San Francisco — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, at the request of Governor Gavin Newsom, agreed, on Wednesday, to vacate the court’s three judge panel ruling, earlier this year, in favor of the parents represented by the Center for American Liberty’s lawsuit Brach v. Newsom (#OpenCASchools), that Newsom’s COVID order barring private schools from in-person teaching, violated parents’ Due Process rights, and have the entire case reheard by the full Ninth Circuit Panel.

Click here to view and download the court’s order.

Click here to view and download the Ninth’s Circuit’s prior ruling

In the prior ruling for parents, the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reasoned: “…the Supreme Court has long held that ‘the right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children is a fundamental liberty interested protected by the Due Process Clause,’ and that right includes ‘the right of parents to be free from state interference with their choice of the educational forum itself.’”

“It’s sad to see Governor Newsom so vigorously continue his assault on children’s education,” said Harmeet K. Dhillon, CEO of the Center for American Liberty. “The prior opinion from the Ninth Circuit was a clear victory for parents and students when the court correctly ruled that under the Constitution, parents – and not Gavin Newsom or faceless bureaucrats — have the right to decide how best to educate their children. I’m confident that the en banc panel will reaffirm that Governor Newsom’s anti-parent power grab was unconstitutional.”

“Although we believe that the original panel correctly held that Governor Newsom violated the Constitution when he closed private schools across the state, we look forward to making our case again to the en banc panel,” said Partner at Eimer Stahl LLP, Robert Dunn. “The school closure orders the Governor kept in place for nearly a year had a devastating impact on students throughout the state and plainly interfered with parents’ ability to control the education of their children. We are confident that the en banc panel will vindicate our clients’ fundamental rights and prevent the Governor from reinstituting such an order.”

 

Delta Conveyance (tunnel) Project Case Study Workshop on community benefits programs Nov. 17

By 1 Comment

Proposed Delta Conveyance Project Facility Corridor Options. From Scoping Summary Report.

Learn from other projects

Haga clic aquí para ver este aviso en español.

As part of ongoing development of the Community Benefits Program for the proposed Delta Conveyance (tunnel) Project, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) is holding a virtual workshop on Wednesday, November 17th from 6:00pm – 8:00pm to hear and learn from representatives of several different example community benefits programs around the country. (See related articles here and here)

Members of the local Delta community are encouraged to attend this event and hear firsthand experiences about the development and implementation of these programs, including different organizational structures, development timing, important milestones and lessons learned.

There will also be an opportunity to ask the panelists questions and engage in dialogue about their experiences and insights. Although these types of programs are not uncommon, there are various ways to go about setting them up. This workshop gives both DWR and the local community the chance to learn more about how it could be done for the proposed Delta Conveyance Project. (See details of the proposed system, here)

The workshop panelists represent a diverse set of projects and community benefits programs from different parts of the country:

  • Oakland, California, Partnership for Working Families 
    • Ben Beach, Legal Director
  • North Charleston, South Carolina, LowCountry Alliance for Model Communities Port Authority Redevelopment and Transfer Station
    • Omar Muhammed, Executive Director, LowCountry Alliance for Model Communities
  • Morro Bay, California, Castle Offshore Wind Project 
    • Scott Collins, City Manager, City of Morro Bay

While no other project or community benefits program exactly matches the specifics of the proposed Delta Conveyance Project and what might be most appropriate for the Community Benefits Program for this project, the example projects that will be discussed in this workshop offer different and valuable perspectives and examples with varying structures, locations and challenges. In preparing for this workshop, DWR researched community benefits programs for large infrastructure projects that had long-term construction impacts, where the benefits of the project were not local, but impacts of the project were, and where location and potential for environmental justice and economically disadvantaged community concerns were also involved.

Photo: CA Dep’t of Water Resources.

Workshop Details & Registration

  • Wednesday, November 17, 2021 | 6:00pm – 8:00pm | REGISTER HERE
  • Workshop will be conducted on Zoom with a call-in option available

Agenda

  • Welcome and Introductions
  • Presentations from the three project representatives
  • Focused panelist discussion:
    • How did the idea develop in your project?
    • How did the community come together to provide input?
    • When in the project lifecycle did people come together?
    • How did you solicit priorities?
    • How did you formalize the program?
    • How are community benefit funds distributed?
    • How are you measuring and monitoring community benefits?
  • Public questions/discussion

Participation Accommodations & Additional Information

  • Closed captioning will be provided
  • Workshop materials will be available in English and Spanish, and a simultaneous Spanish translation will be offered
  • Workshop access information and materials will be sent out prior to the workshop through Eventbrite
  • If you cannot participate in the workshop but have questions, please email us at DeltaConveyanceCBP@water.ca.gov
  • A recording of the workshop will be posted on the project website, along with the background material, when available

To register, click here.

Cal Fire to allocate funds for California Forest Improvement Program

By Leave a Comment

Source: California Forest Management Task Force

$18 million in funding for the next 3 years available to private and public land owners

CAL FIRE announced today, Thursday, October 28, 2021, it is allocating more than $18 million for the California Forest Improvement Program (CFIP), which is designed to provide up to a 90% cost-share assistance to small private and public forestland owners to improve forest health and increase the resilience of California’s forestlands to adapt to climate change. Funding to support private forestland owners through this and other programs was provided through Senate Bill-170 Budget Act of 2021.

Source: CFMTF

The purpose of the CFIP is to encourage private and public investments in forestlands and resources within the state to ensure adequate future high quality timber supplies, related employment, and other economic benefits, and to protect, maintain, and enhance the forest resource for the benefit of present and future generations.

The funds will be released over the next three years beginning in 2021 for forest health projects. The funds will be dispersed in bi-monthly blocks of approximately $2 million until all monies have been applied for by project applicants. Cost-share assistance is available to private and public ownerships containing 20 to 5,000 acres of forest land, and cost-shared projects include thinning for forest health and fire resilience, tree planting, pruning, and other forest health improvement activities as described at the following web location:

https://www.fire.ca.gov/grants/california-forest-improvement-program-cfip/

For inquiries on the program and how to apply, please contact one of CAL FIRE’s Forestry Assistance Specialists at the following web location:

https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/trjncbme/contact-a-cfip-forest-advisor.pdf

Source: CFMTF

This funding is designed to help meet California’s goals of improved forest health, resilience to climate change, and reduced forestland impacts due to devastating wildfires. The efforts help implement the recommendations in California’s Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan from the Governor’s Forest Management Task Force issued in January, this year.

The CFIP has been in existence since the 1978 California Forest Improvement Act was passed and has encumbered over $75 million for landowner assistance since the beginning of the program.

 

Gov. Newsom signs bill extending government agency online meetings through end of 2023

By Leave a Comment

But can choose to hold in-person meetings

By Allen Payton

On Sept. 16, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 361, entitled “Open meetings: state and local agencies: teleconferences,” extending the time period for online meetings of government agencies until Jan. 1, 2024. The current order allowing the online meetings until the end of this month, will expire on Oct. 1 under an executive order he signed, on Monday, Sept. 20.

According to the Legislative Counsel’s Digest, “This bill, until January 1, 2024, would authorize a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Ralph M. Brown Act when a legislative body of a local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency, as that term is defined, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, during a proclaimed state of emergency held for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, and during a proclaimed state of emergency when the legislative body has determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, as provided.”

However, government agencies can still choose to return to meeting in person.

State Senate Election Committee Chair Glazer calls for recall system reform

By Leave a Comment

Senator Glazer calls it “broken” in spite of only two recalls of governor in state history; joins Assembly member Berman; Assembly Election Committee Chair to hold hearings to examine needed changes in wake of recently concluded recall election

By Steven Harmon, Policy Analyst/Communications, Office of Sen. Steve Glazer

State Senator Steve Glazer (D-7-Orinda)

Sacramento – Following Tuesday night’s recall election of the governor, only the second one to qualify for the ballot in state history, the California Legislature’s two leading members on election issues on Wednesday announced a coordinated effort to examine reforms to California’s recall election system.

Senator Steve Glazer (D – Contra Costa) and Assemblymember Marc Berman (D – Menlo Park) and said they are determined to fix a broken system in the wake of the 2021 gubernatorial recall election, which raised questions about whether a system designed in the early 20th century has enough checks and balances to ensure democratic and fair elections.

Berman, Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Elections, and Glazer, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments, will hold a series of bipartisan joint hearings in the coming months to begin a statewide discussion regarding potential improvements to California’s recall laws. The intent is to produce a proposal that will be taken up in the Legislature during the 2022 legislative session.

“Now that the recall is over, I believe it is time to re-evaluate and update California’s recall process,” said Senator Glazer.  “The voters want to see a more democratic process put in place that keeps elected officials accountable but, prevents political gamesmanship of the rules.  We hope to work with policy experts and stakeholders of different political perspectives on a viable solution that ultimately makes sense for a modern-day California.”

The recall process is one of four ways the state’s voters can have direct impact on the legislative and governing process, which also include electing representatives, as well as the referendum and initiative. (See CA Constitution Article II) Under the leadership of then Gov. Hiram Johnson came into office proposing the three major populist changes, bringing direct democracy to California. According to Ballotpedia, “Johnson and the new Progressive majority in the legislature made the most sweeping governmental changes ever seen in the history of California. Among these were the introduction of initiative, referendum, and recall at both the state and local levels. Voters ratified these amendments in a special election on October 10, 1911.”

At that time, Johnson said, “they do give to the electorate the power of action when desired, and they do place in the hands of the people the means by which they may protect themselves.”

According to the Secretary of State’s website, “Since 1913, there have been 179 recall attempts of state elected officials in California. Eleven recall efforts collected enough signatures to qualify for the ballot and of those, the elected official was recalled in six instances.” Of those 179, 55 were attempted recalls of the governor, two qualified for the ballot, Grey Davis and Newsom, and only Davis was successfully recalled.

The committees will evaluate recall laws in other states, and will invite experts to examine California’s recall process, including issues such as grounds for removal; signature gathering requirements; process of succession if a governor is recalled; and other issues. The process will be open to the public in an effort to maintain the utmost transparency, and the committees also hope to include the expertise of elections officials, political scientists, legal experts, and others.

“While the recall is an important tool for voters to address misconduct or corruption by elected officials, yesterday’s election highlighted the fundamentally undemocratic nature of California’s existing recall process,” said Assemblymember Berman. “California law should not allow someone else to be recalled and replaced by a candidate who receives far fewer votes. I look forward to hearing from a bipartisan group of experts about how California’s recall process should be reformed.”

Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins said that she supports examining recall reform.

“A thorough review of California’s recall law is timely and worthy of debate, and I would like to thank Senator Glazer and Assemblymember Berman for spearheading the efforts to start this important conversation,” Atkins said.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon said, “It is totally appropriate to begin discussion of reforming the recall process. We came far too close to having a governor elected by a tiny fraction of eligible voters. While that is no way to pick the leader of the most populous state in the nation, it would be equally wrong to make any changes without a thorough study of alternatives. I look forward to hearing the discussion.”

The recall process was adopted in California almost 110 years ago but, has been used sparingly for most of the state’s history. More than 70% of the attempts to recall elected state officials that have qualified for the ballot, including the only two statewide recall elections in California history, have occurred in the last 27 years. Each of California’s last nine Governors has faced multiple recall attempts, though only two of those attempts have qualified for the ballot.

Two recent polls, conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California and by the Institute of Government Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, have found that a majority of voters favor keeping but reforming the recall process.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

CA Attorney General announces $575 million settlement with Sutter Health on anti-competitive practices allegations

By Leave a Comment

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta Friday, August 27 lauded Judge Massullo’s final approval of a landmark $575 million settlement with Sutter Health (Sutter). The settlement agreement was reached in 2019, and resolves allegations by the Attorney General’s office, the United Food and Commercial Workers and Employers Benefit Trust (UEBT), and class action plaintiffs that Sutter’s anticompetitive practices led to higher healthcare costs for consumers in Northern California compared to other places in the state. The settlement requires Sutter to pay $575 million in compensation, prohibits anticompetitive conduct, and requires Sutter to follow certain practices to restore competition in California’s healthcare markets.

“This is a groundbreaking settlement and a win for Californians,” said AG Bonta. “Sutter will no longer have free rein to engage in anticompetitive practices that force patients to pay more for health services. Under the terms of our agreement, Sutter’s transparency must increase, and practices that decrease the accessibility and affordability of healthcare must end. A competitive healthcare market is essential to ensuring patients and families aren’t bearing the brunt of healthcare costs while one company dominates the market.”

Sutter is the largest hospital system in Northern California. The Sutter network consists of some 24 acute care hospitals, 36 ambulatory surgery centers, and 16 cardiac and cancer centers. It also includes some 12,000 physicians and over 53,000 employees. In addition, Sutter negotiates contracts on behalf of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and many affiliated physician groups.

This settlement is the result of litigation that began in 2014 when UEBT filed a class action lawsuit that challenged Sutter’s practices in rendering services and setting prices. They sought compensation for and an end to what they alleged were unlawful, anticompetitive business practices, which caused them to pay more than necessary for healthcare services and products. In March 2018, the Attorney General’s office filed a similar lawsuit against Sutter on behalf of the people of California, seeking injunctive relief to compel Sutter to correct its anticompetitive business practices moving forward. The separate lawsuits were combined by the court into one case. In October 2019, one day before the trial, the parties reached an agreement to settle. The settlement was filed with the court on December 19, 2019, and in March, Judge Massullo granted preliminary approval.

Today’s finalized settlement requires Sutter to:

  • Pay $575 million to compensate employers, unions, and others covered under the class action, and to cover costs and fees associated with the legal efforts;
  • Limit what it charges patients for out-of-network services, helping ensure that patients visiting an out-of-network hospital do not face outsized, surprise medical bills;
  • Increase transparency by permitting insurers, employers, and self-funded payers to provide plan members with access to pricing, quality, and cost information, which helps patients make better care decisions;
  • Halt measures that deny patients access to lower-cost plans, thus allowing health insurers, employers, and self-funded payers to offer and direct patients to more affordable health plan options for networks or products;
  • Stop all-or-nothing contracting deals, thus allowing insurers, employers, and self-funded payers to include some but not necessarily all of Sutter’s hospitals, clinics, or other commercial products in their plans’ network.
  • Cease anticompetitive bundling of services and products which forced insurers, employers, and self-funded payers to purchase for their plan offerings more services or products from Sutter than were needed. Sutter must now offer a stand-alone price that must be lower than any bundled package price to give insurers, employers, and self-funded payers more choice;
  • Cooperate with a court-approved compliance monitor to ensure that Sutter is following the terms of the settlement for at least 10 years. The monitor will receive and investigate complaints and may present evidence to the court; and
  • Prevent anticompetitive practices by clearly defining clinical integration to include patient quality of care. The settlement makes clear that for Sutter to claim it has clinically integrated a system, it must meet strict standards beyond regional similarities or the mere sharing of an electronic health record, and must be integrating care in a manner that takes into consideration the quality of care to the patient population. This is important because clinical integration can be used to mask market consolidation efforts by hospital systems, when in fact there is no true integration of a patient’s care. For example, saying that hospitals are regionally close or that hospitals are sharing electronic health records is not enough, there must be close coordination that will lead to less costly, higher quality care for local communities.

A report by the University of California Berkeley showed that over-consolidation drives up prices for consumers. According to the study, outpatient cardiology procedures in Southern California cost nearly $18,000 compared to almost $29,000 in Northern California. For inpatient hospital procedures, the cost in Southern California is nearly $132,000 compared to more than $223,000 in Northern California, a more than $90,000 difference. A 2016 study found that a cesarean delivery in Sacramento, where Sutter is based, costs more than $27,000, nearly double what it costs in Los Angeles or New York, making Northern California one of the most expensive places in the country to have a baby.

Sutter Health offered the following response to the settlement:

“Today’s ruling brings closure to this matter, which was settled almost two years ago. This voluntary settlement enables Sutter Health to maintain our integrated network and ability to provide patients with access to affordable, high-quality care. Sutter’s quality of care is nationally recognized, with the majority of hospitals and care facilities outperforming state and national averages in many measures of quality. We look forward to continuing to work with our health plan partners at the same time we continue to care for the underserved in our communities.”

A copy of the final approval order and judgment are available here and here.