California County News

Farm Bureau Sues Fresno County over Solar Development

Trouble is brewing between property owners, counties, and the state’s Farm Bureau as land is turned over to house solar panels. At the heart of the matter are property rights and the violation of the Williamson Act, which is intended to preserve farm land. If a landowner wants to put up solar panels on land protected by the Williamson Act, then permission must be sought from the county, and when Fresno supervisors offered their blessing, the Farm Bureau ended up suing the county.

KQED notes that the Bureau’s legal decision is notable because “The fight places the Farm Bureau, usually a fierce defender of property rights, in the odd position of squaring off against willing property owners over what they should be able to do with their land.”

Farm Bureau officials are worried about the amount of solar projects proposed for a top agricultural county like Fresno and the effect it could have on production and the conservation of prime farmland.

Questions have been raised about whether farming the sun can be considered farming (and therefore not violate the Act), and many farmers have experienced a desire to make decisions for themselves about their land, and have even suggested experimenting with planting crops next to solar panels. 

Supervisors believe that solar will allow Fresno to diversify the economic base of the county so it will be less reliant on agriculture.

Sacramento Officials Deny Discrimination against Muslim Employee; Lawsuit Filed

Sacramento County is denying allegations that a Muslim employee suffered from discrimination in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. The employee, Abdur-Rahim Wasi, began working for the county’s Human Assistance Department during the same year as the terrorist attacks and has sued the county for religious and racial discrimination. A complaint was filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Sacramento officials counter that steps were taken to stop any harassment, but the employee begs to differ.

According to Wasi, he was mocked for expressing concerns about discrimination and that the county has prevented him from being able to properly practice his faith. The Bee reports: “Wasi wanted to leave work for an hour every third Friday to observe an Islamic ceremony, which he's entitled to do under state law. Wasi was willing to work other hours to make up the time, but the county refused, even though at least one other county employee was granted a similar arrangement, the lawsuit states.”

The employee also has taken issue with jokes at his expense and a fake business card that read “Job Club Assassinator.” Wasi is seeking monetary damages, but it is not clear how much.

Report Ranks Judicial Hellholes of 2011: CA Ranks as 2nd Worst Offender in the Nation

The American Tort Reform Foundation has once again released its annual report ranking “Judicial Hellholes” and instead of any particular county receiving special attention, the entire state of California has been ranked second in the country for egregious abuses of the civil justice system. The organization attempts to single out areas of the nation where they believe “judges systematically apply laws and court procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner.”  The report goes on to argue that California can blame its high unemployment rate on a lack of tort reform because states like Texas have implemented changes to cultivate a pro-business environment.

As for California’s selection as the second worst judicial hellhole, the report states:

“While Los Angeles County historically earned a reputation as the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction in the Golden State, small business-destroying lawsuits filed by professional plaintiffs have spread throughout California. These individuals have filed thousands of extortionate claims against popular family-owned restaurants, book stores and salons, demanding thousands of dollars to settle allegations of technical violations of disabled access standards, and California’s courts have enabled the extortion. Recent court decisions demonstrate that California remains friendly to consumer lawsuits (even after voters attempted to rein in abuse), class actions, and high awards. The California Supreme Court deserves praise for its recent rejection of ‘phantom damages,’ but the adverse effect of its late 2010 decision allowing local government officials to hire private contingency-fee lawyers to enforce state law is now becoming evident.”

The report does manage to praise the California Supreme Court for rejecting inflated damages for the costs of medical treatment. And for the complete list, here are the top 10 so-called “judicial hellholes” for 2011:

Philadelphia
California
West Virginia
South Florida
Madison and St. Clair counties, Illinois
New York City and Albany, N.Y
Clark County, Nevada
McLean County, Illinois

Read the full report here.

Marin’s Racketeering Lawsuit Faces Hurdles as Judge Tosses Claims against Software Firm

Back in 2005, the county of Marin ordered a software system to deal with financial and personnel management. However, the county claims it was sold a dud, and in response, filed a lawsuit against software vendor SAP under the allegation that the county was sold a $30 million system that would not work. The county is even arguing in court that Ernest Culver, a former assistant county auditor, continued to manage the dud because the software company bribed him with a job (he took a position with SAP after the software lemon went nowhere).

In an update, the County's racketeering claims, for the most part, were dismissed by a judge due to a lack of evidence with respect to claims of mail fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy. However, the judge would not agree to completely dismiss the charges against Culver. The judge wrote, “Although a thin reed, the Court finds the County has alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible claim of bribery.” The Marin Journal also points out that “The judge also rejected Culver's claim that he is immune from the lawsuit because he was acting in his capacity as a public official.”

The county has already spent $2.5 million on the legal fight and the Board of Supervisors recently agreed to dish out another $1 million to see the case to its end. The county wants to prove that SAP and Deloitte Consulting LLP tried to hide the inevitable failings of the software and were unable to set it up properly.

The county has some time to amend its lawsuit to "correct the deficiencies" in its claims.

Too Transparent? Investment Magazine Makes the Case for San Diego’s Pension Fund

The San Diego County Employees Retirement Association is facing scrutiny for the dismissal of a worker who raised concerns about investment risks, and the worker has been fighting his termination with a lawsuit. While the former employee claims he had a responsibility to blow the whistle and speak out about portions of the fund exceeding their risk, the fund points out that at no point has it failed to comply with risk policies. The worker is looking for $500,000 in damages and the case has grabbed attention because, as the Union-Tribune reports, “Experts say his predicament raises interesting questions about balancing the public good of transparent government and an agency’s right to enforce its own policies.”

On the subject of transparency, the magazine aiCIO (Asset International for Chief Investment Officers) recently featured an article entitled, “Is Transparency Killing San Diego?” It’s not a headline you see every day. The article claims that San Diego’s pension fund receives the worst media coverage out of all systems in Southern California. The article questions, “Yet, is it the fund's attempts at good governance, and not poor investment decisions, that are causing its problems?” The author of the article points out that a majority of the board’s appointment members lack financial experience and argues the following with respect to transparency:

“The difference between SDCERA and other public funds is its transparency, which manifests with the fund posting video of its board meetings on its website. Combine this with a relatively contentious local political environment in conservative San Diego and a board susceptible to public pressure, and you have a recipe for—well, an SDCERA-type problem."

You can read the whole feature here.

Pension Officials in Sonoma Look to Avoid Further Legal Action; Release More Pension Data

We’ve relayed previously that much like other county pension systems in the state, Sonoma County lost a prolonged legal battle to block the release of retiree names and figures. Back in September Sonoma publicly released such pension data and it was revealed that 98 retirees receive pensions higher than $100,000. In an update, the county’s pension officials have now agreed to release even more pension figures so that the public can understand how benefits are calculated and how additional perks are factored into compensation.

The newspaper the Press Democrat first filed the lawsuit back in 2010 and now the pension system will have to pay its legal fees, which are nearly $100,000. Other pension systems across the state have faced criticism for incurring thousands in legal fees fighting cases that continue to rule against privacy in favor of disclosure. Sonoma will pay the newspaper $93,516 and notably it also paid $106,000 in legal fees to fight the case.

Recently the newspaper and the pension system resolved outstanding issues as to how much information had to be disclosed to the public. The Press Democrat reports what the prior release was lacking, from its perspective:

“The records, however, did not show information about retirees' years of employment and final compensation — both of which are used to calculate pensions — or give details about retirees' former department or job class. Also withheld was information about extra pay and benefits county employees get on top of their salaries that can boost final compensation and increase pensions.”

Pension officials could have opted to fight the release of the extra data with more legal action (and costs), but the retirement board opted to forego that route and made the expanded information available. Notably, the newspaper is being charged $8,000 for receiving the information due to the staff time it will take to collect data and it will provide it at some point in January.

Contra Costa Pension System Files Lawsuit to Dispute County’s Authority over Wage Cuts

Contra Costa County’s pension system is fighting the county over wage and benefit cuts that were imposed upon staff at the County Employees' Retirement Association—a move the retirement agency has deemed illegal. Twelve top and midlevel managers faced cuts under a vote from supervisors and now a civil lawsuit has been filed over who has rightful control to determine the compensation of employees at the pension system.

While the county exerted its influence in terms of handing out pay reductions (and pay increases have also been negotiated in the past), the retirement agency filed suit because it posits that the system is an independent entity and that paychecks should be left intact.

However, it is worth noting that the pension system’s staff is technically considered county employees due to a state law that was put in the books in 1937. The Contra Costa Times reports that Supervisor John Gioia has commented legislative action would be necessary if the agency was to officially split its staff from the county’s staff and he stated the following:

“The association has been happy to take without objection all the pay and benefit hikes negotiated at the county in prior years. I suggest that instead of using public money to wage a legal battle against the county that they use the money to pursue legislation and gain full independence. I would support it."

Supervisors did reverse course on imposing a pay cut on the pension system’s CEO because she was hired by the board of directors.

Santa Clara Sheriff Sued for Process of Awarding Concealed Weapons Permits

Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith is under fire over her department’s process for awarding concealed weapons permits. For instance, a former police officer who owned an investigative firm had his permit request turned down by Smith, so now the Sheriff’s Department is facing a lawsuit for allegedly handing out the permits in an arbitrary manner.

There are also concerns that many current permit holders shouldn’t technically be classified as residents of the county, so it is not clear how the residency status is being defined for many applicants. For instance, one particularly wealthy permit-holder lives in Russia. Sheriffs from Alameda and San Mateo County noted that they ensure applicants are verified residents of their respective counties. Mercury News reports on those who have been awarded permits in Santa Clara:

“The list of 49 "civilian" permit holders released to this newspaper includes 13 people who donated to Smith's campaigns over the years, either personally or through companies connected to them. Also on the list are people whose permits have continually been renewed, even though the original reason for getting the permit appears to no longer apply.”

Sheriff Smith has dished out fewer permits than counties like Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Mateo. You can find a list of all permit holders in Santa Clara County here. A hearing on the lawsuit is slated to take place in January.

Judge Urges Other Counties to Adopt Laura’s Law to Save Money and Lives

Nevada County is the only county in the state to have fully implemented Laura’s Law in response to a legal settlement surrounding a woman’s murder by a severely mentally ill man. The law has been around for 8 years and is intended to get mentally ill people treatment, often on an involuntary basis. Many untreated mentally ill people are homeless and the law aims to get such patients off the street with treatment, especially if there is the potential for violence, which was the case in Nevada County for a college-aged woman the law is named after. 

Orange County has discussed adopting the law, which would make it the first county to voluntary implement Laura’s Law, but the Orange County's Health Care Agency has already released a critical report on the ordinance. The Orange County Commission to End Homelessness by 2020 is studying the proposal and recently a panel discussion was held in Huntington Beach by the Behavioral Health Symposium sponsored by the California Hospital Association.

Among the speakers on the panel was John Anderson, the Superior Court judge in charge of Nevada County's program. Anderson is a supporter of the law and advocates that other counties should adopt it. The judge stated, “It's a very effective tool that has proven to save lives ... and save and ease a burden on service providers. And it saves tons of money." The Voice of OC reports the following on Anderson’s arguments:

“’We're a beta,’ Anderson said of the small county's groundbreaking work. Asked why large counties, including Orange, don't study the Nevada County experience as a pilot program, he replied, ‘It boggles me.’ Part of the reason, he suggested, for general opposition to Laura's Law by county health departments statewide is that the courts would hold them accountable for actually providing the treatment they promise. Some opponents of Laura's Law have cited conservatorships as a better alternative.”

Sac County Says Don’t Put Us in the Middle of Conflicting St. and Federal Laws: Bans Dispensaries

For months now, the proliferation of pot dispensaries in Sacramento County has tested the patience of officials concerned about the number of businesses operating in defiance of zoning and permit laws. During past discussions, dispensary owners and the county have agreed that clearer rules and operating guidelines have sorely been needed, but both sides have had differences of opinion on what exactly those guidelines should entail. Now Sacramento County has made its intentions quite clear: supervisors recently voted to essentially ban dispensaries. The board updated its zoning code to ban any land use that violates federal law, state law, or both, thereby making dispensaries unlawful in the county.

Board Chair Roberta McGlashan commented, “Sorting out the conflicts between state and federal law on this subject and court cases, is not something we could untangle in the board of supervisors' chambers." The federal government has taken a tough stance as of lately through the actions of the U.S. Attorney's office, which likely influenced the county to reconsider proposals to create regulations and licensing procedures for dispensaries.

So while there were previously complaints about the county’s stance being ambiguous when it came to dispensaries, the board posited the new approach should make the government’s position clearer, namely that dispensaries are simply not permitted. The Bee reports on the circumstances leading up to the vote:

“The vote came after county staff advised supervisors of a state 2nd District Court of Appeal decision in October that said the city of Long Beach could not license dispensaries because of federal marijuana laws and a District Court ruling in November upholding a city of Riverside ban on pot stores.”

The board is sure to face backlash and angry protests from medical marijuana patients and dispensary owners.