Eye On Modesto

Thoughts and observations about Modesto and Stanislaus County

Archive for the category “Uncategorized”

MPD’s WAKEUP Program is Going to Hurt Modesto’s Youth

By Emerson Drake

“What does not work in crime prevention is just as important as what works. It is counterproductive to use scarce budget funds and waste the funding support on programs that do not work, or that may make things worse. Throwing good money after bad  reduces the public’s trust in their government.”

Wrote Anthony J. Schembri, Secretary Florida Department of Juvenile Justic

 

From the 500 citations generated, this stringent process yielded nine studies that met the methodological demands to be included in the final analysis. These studies were conducted between 1967-1992 in eight different states throughout the U.S., with Michigan being the site for two. The collective sample was 946 juveniles with an average age ranging from 15 to 17 years old, a racial composition between 36%-84% white, with only one study including girls (for complete breakdown by study see Petrosino et al., 2003). The focus of investigation was on the proportion of each group (Scared Straight or control) that re-offended.

The results from the re-offending rates show that the Scared Straight-type intervention

increases the delinquency outcomes during the follow-up period. This means that those youth who went through these types of programs have higher recidivism rates than those youth who did not go through the programs. It is important to remember that the treatment and the control groups were randomized, meaning that each youth had an equal probability of being placed in either group, thus assuring that each group is comparable and essentially identical at the outset of the experiment. This guarantees that any difference between the two groups is due to the intervention itself, and not to any characteristic of the youth in each group.

 

 

http://www.djj.state.fl.us/Research/Scared_Straight_Booklet_Version.pdf

 Modesto’s Police Department should have learned this lesson the first time but since we didn’t we’re doomed to repeat it.  Don’t fall for what feels good, insist on what actually is good for our children.

 

MID is Being Challenged for its Exorbitant Charges

Dear Allen:
 
Under the tenets of the California Public Records Act, and on behalf of the Stanislaus Taxpayers Association, I make the following requests for public records and information:
 
(1) Please provide me with all documents that the District used to determine that 25 cents per page for copies of public records is reasonable.
 
(2) Separate from No. 1 above, please provide me with all documents The District used to determine that the fee the District charges for copies of video records is reasonable.
 
(3)Separate from No’s. 1 and 2 above, please provide me with all the documents that the District used to determine that when the District provides damaged, incomplete or unusable DVD’s to the public, it is required that the public spend its time and energy to bring the unusable DVD to the MID offices and surrender that public document, prior to the District providing a replacement DVD, which would require yet one more trip, and expense, to MID offices.  
 
Thank you, Dave Thomas, President, Stanislaus Taxpayers Association

=

Information Regarding Controversy Surrounding Dryden Golf Course

By Emerson Drake

We’ve been asked to make inquires about Dryden Golf Course.  The origin of the course and concern about funding attached to it.  The following is the response we received from the city. We will be scheduling time in the immediate future to peruse the mentioned documents.

We are extremely appreciative of the time and effort the City Clerk, Stephanie Lopez and her staff with a special mention to Cathi Erbe, have put in to help us with our information quest.

Mr. Drake,

 

Research to fulfill your public records request has been completed.  All paperwork for the acquisition of the land for Dryden Golf Course has been gathered.  Land was also obtained from Kenneth H. Durand and Gladys S. Durand, so these documents have been included.  Documentation for this was very old and rather fragile and could not be scanned, so paper copies are available.  You are welcome to look thru them, and only pay for the ones you want.  If you take the entire stack, the total for 173 pages would be $17.30.

 

Federal funds were not used for the acquisition of the property.  The only reference that could be found to connect Dryden Golf Course and federal funding was back in 1997 when there was a flood.  Resolution 97-677 (A Resolution Authorizing Staff to Submit a Flood Disaster Relief Application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for Disaster Relief Initiative Funds) contains an attachment that says “The City also hopes to receive an additional $587,096 FEMA reimbursement for damage done to the City-owned Dryden Golf Course”.  Resolution 98-161 amended the annual budget to include the supplemental CDBG allocation for the HUD disaster relief program.  The $650,426 that was awarded was the amount that was requested to be used for the residential parcels on the south side of Hillside Drive, and that’s where all the funds were applied.

 

There has been only one green fee increase, on July 1, 2004, where $1.00 per 18-hole round was to be dedicated to the golf fund reserve (not specifically Dryden) for capital improvements.  The “transfer” of this dedicated capital money has since stopped because of the decrease in green fee revenues and their inability to cover operating expenses.

City of Modesto to Hold Public Hearings

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing will be held by the Council of the City of Modesto on Tuesday, March 6, 2012, at 5:30 p.m. in the Chambers, Basement Level, Tenth Street Place, 1010 10th Street, Modesto, California, to consider approving copy fees at $010 per page for black and white and $.20 per page for color for public documents. All interested people are invited to attend at the above time and place and will be given time to be heard.

If you challenge the proposed fees in court you may be limited to those issues raised by you or someone else at this public hearing or in writing prior to the public hearings.  If you have any questions call 577-5396 or 577-5369.

MID Attorney O’Laughlin Gets $102,280 for January from Ratepayers

By Emerson Drake

With some people there is no end to greed and it seems Modesto Irrigation District attorney Tim O’Laughlin of O’Laughlin & Paris LLP is no exception.  He went out of his way to troll for business on Tuesday denying a ratepayer the right to discussion during the Consent Items portion of the meeting.

Director Byrd had asked questions regarding Consent Item #1, a motion to approve Warrants in the amount of $970,523.55. He had question relating to the details behind the costs regarding several items.  Some of these were answered completely by staff and others vaguely with the caveat they would provide further detail at a later date. 

While the individual items were under discussion it was thrown open to public questions.  When a ratepayer asked for information regarding two items on the warrant list they were told by Tim O’Laughlin that they would receive their answer via Public Records Act or (PRA).  What many aren’t aware of is attorney O’Laughlin’s company gets paid extra to process these very requests.

Now MID’s own guidelines say that discussion will only take place if an item is pulled.  The question should have been answered immediately but O’Laughlin decided to create some work for his own company and denied the ratepayer the answer. During the meeting it was pointed out to the Board, that when addressing theCountyBoardof Supervisors or the Modesto City Council regarding Consent items, the answers are forth coming immediately.

A conversation with MID Board President Tom Van Groningen after the meeting suggested the questions should have been answered at the time of the query and the situation would be rectified by the next meeting.  On that we’ll have to wait and see. Not that we doubt Director Van Groningen’s word but in the not to recent past Dave Thomas of the Stanislaus Taxpayers Association had worked out an arrangement with MID General Manager Allen Short, only to find out at the next meeting that Mr. Short tossed the agreement aside and continued on as he had previously. It was suggested attorney O’Laughlin had something to do with the change of heart. So until we see if O’Laughlin is allowed to continue to drum up business for his own firm, the only position we can take is to bide our time until the next meeting.

The larger question remains as to why MID’s own attorney is allowed to generate unnecessary work for his company.

The answer to one of the questions, the Chamber of Commerce is celebrating their 100th anniversary this year and MID decided to spend $1,000 of ratepayers money to buy a page in their “special” anniversary issue.

You can decide for yourselves if you believe this is a judicious way to spend your hard earned money.

By the way, the Chamber of Commerce will be receiving a private presentation of the   MID water sale propaganda before the rate paying citizens do.  When queried, Cecil Russell, the Chambers CEO, wasn’t concerned that they wouldn’t hear both side of the discussion.  He believes these “Businessmen” can discern what needs to be done without all of the facts.

We believe, just as in a political debate, both side of a discussion should have the opportunity to present their points of view.

No offense to anyone but maybe the ratepayers who have spoken up against the water sale should have bought a page in their anniversary issue too.

For February 27th on Athens Abell’s ‘On Watch’ cable television show proponents for the sale of water have been invited, Josh Vanderveen and a representative for the Latino Roundtable either Armando Flores or Ruben Villalobos have been invited as they have been outspoken at MID meetings.   Two individuals who have spoken out against the sale, John Duarte and Todd Sill have been asked to come and represent the anti-sale side of the discussion. Final details have yet to be worked out.

Senators, You Work For Us! Now Let’s Talk About Healthcare

Senators Roy Blunt and Mitch McConnell are proposing an amendment to the Affordable Health Care Act that would allow ANY employer to deny coverage for ANY treatment that the employer has a moral objection to.  Not just employers that are religiously affiliated, but any employer. That means your boss could deny treatment for mental illness, HIV treatment, drug and alcohol treatment, pre-natal care for an unmarried woman or even say he has a moral objection to cervical cancer treatment because it is caused by HPV, which is transmitted sexually!  Actually, it’s transmitted from men to women, yet the woman could be denied coverage.

What these fine gentlemen are forgetting is that they work for us!  We are their employer!  Now, gentlemen, let’s talk about your health care coverage.  The insurance we provide for you covers everything!  You don’t have to purchase this insurance, it is provided free of charge, for the rest of your life!

I’m sure I’m not alone in feeling that I have a moral objection to what you are trying to do to health care coverage.  And I have a particularly strong moral objection to what you are trying to do to women when it comes to contraception!

Copy and paste the address below to add your voice and make your opinion known:

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/mitch_hypocrite/index2.html?rc=LA_Mitch_02162012_e1

Who Should Testify About Birth Control? Apparently Not Women!

By EOM Staff

Funny how birth control has become such a hot political issue lately.  We’ve had the pill for almost 60 years now.  Abortions have always existed, legal or not.  I just can’t help but think that if birth control were the responsibility of men we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Now there is a five-member panel to hear testimony about birth control.  The five members are all male.  Not one woman to hear testimony about the need for birth control!  On top of that, these five men are deciding who is an “appropriate witness to give testimony” to them.  They are excluding women from telling their personal stories about the need for birth control.  On The Ed Show last night, there was a young college student who had been scheduled to give testimony to the contraception panel.  At the last minute, these men decided she was not an appropriate witness to give testimony.  So she went on the Ed Show and told the story of her friend, also a college student, who took birth control pills to prevent cysts from growing on her ovaries.  The pills cost her $100 a month.  Month after month after month.  The expense finally became too great to bear, as she was working her way through college and had tuition, room and board and books to pay for.  She stopped getting her pills.  A cyst grew in her ovary, ruptured and landed her in the hospital.  Now the ovary has been removed, but her medical condition has caused her to go into early menopause.  For some unfathomable reason, the male panel did not feel this was appropriate testimony!

Additionally, there is now one more reason to call Mitt Romney “Flipper”.  Prior to becoming governor of Massachusetts, his predecessor signed into law a mandate that insurance companies in Massachusetts provide birth control coverage.  Once Mr. Romney took office, he never attempted to repeal this law.  His only clash with lawmakers in Massachusetts was whether Catholic hospitals should be required to dispense emergency contraception to rape victims.

Now that he is running for President, he would actually like to ban hormonal birth control methods.  That would include IUDs and birth control pills.  He is up in arms over President Obama’s proposal that insurances companies provide birth control coverage, even though Obama’s proposal exempts churches.

Yes, many of the GOP contenders state that women can get their birth control from clinics instead of through their insurance.  But these same men would like to eliminate funding for places such as Planned Parenthood.  If that happens, where would women get their birth control?  The pill runs between $60 – $100 a month, IUD’s cost about $1800.  How could college students or low income women afford this?

The most appalling thing of all was the interview given by one of Rick Santorum’s biggest financial contributors last night.  He said, and I quote, “back in my day birth control was inexpensive and easy to use – the gals just held an aspirin between their knees!”  Obviously this man has no consideration for the plight of women of child-bearing age, gives no consideration to the pressure men put on women to have sex, and sees contraception as just a woman’s issue (the gals), even though we are about to lose the right to said contraception!  This man belongs back in the 1800s, not in 2012!

If women don’t get out in force in November, we will lose the right to birth control and the right to safe and legal abortions.  What will be next?  The right to own property, vote, hold down a job, have credit in our own name, serve on a jury, run for public office?  These are rights that women have won over the last 150 years.  All of these things were once illegal for women.  We can’t let that happen again.

Come on women – register to vote and get out in November!  Don’t let men control our lives once again!

Congratulations Mayor Garrad Marsh as a New Day Dawns

Tuesday’s City Council meeting was a breath of fresh air.  Mayor Ridenour bowed out gracefully and Mayor Marsh assumed his position confidently.  He immediately set about making a few of his wishes known. 

 

During the public comment portion of the meeting I asked the council to re-visitModesto’s TIN CUP ordinance and return campaign contribution limits to the prior levels.

 

In 2005Modesto, at the behest of the Chamber of Commerce, raised the level of contribution allowed to $3,000 over a 48 month period. I believe the levels should be returned to the prior level of $1,000. 

 

In recent conversations with Chamber of Commerce leadership it has been made known the Chamber would back this adjustment of contribution levels.

 

What many people are not aware of is Mayor Marsh was one of the Council members in 2005 who voted against the increase.  It is hoped with the Mayor’s backing and the Chamber’s stamp of approval this change could come about soon.

 

To see the request go to http://www.modestogov.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=421&doctype=AGENDA

 And fast forward to 52.30 minutes into the meeting.

 

After dispensing with the consent calendar, Miguel Dinoso asked the Council to ensure firefighters and police would have at least minimal training in Spanish in the Shakelford area..

 

He also spoke out about community concerns regarding the lack of parks in the neighborhood.  Mayor Marsh responded by saying, “”we need to fix that,” simple and to the point.

 

The new logo was on display at the meeting.  On the big screen it was side by side with the old logo for and the difference was striking.  I’ve never heard of a CEO deciding to move his company to a town based on a logo, but updating ours can’t hurt.

 

Mayor Marsh was adamant thatModesto’s motto of Water, Wealth, Contentment, Health remain.

 

We have a real opportunity to improve lifeModesto, let’s join arms and take a step forward together.

Should Your Boss Control Your Access To Medical Care?

In a radical response to President Obama’s desire to make birth control readily available to any woman who wants it, Republican Senator Roy Blunt has proposed letting any employer deny coverage for any health care treatment to which they claim a religious or moral objection.  Not just a well-documented religious objection, such as birth control for Catholic women, but a MORAL objection.  This means your boss could impose his morals on your access to health care.

Your employer could choose to deny coverage for contraception, HIV treatment, vaccination, substance-abuse/alcohol counseling, blood transfusions, prenatal care for unmarried woman, or even mental illness.  Is this the answer to our problems?  Let our bosses decide what medical treatment we should have access to?

More on the War on Women….

Remember in 1960 when so many people were upset that John Kennedy, if elected, would be controlled by the Vatican?  Their fears were unfounded.  Ironic, that now so many people are upset that our current president refuses to be controlled by the Vatican, isn’t it?

The state of Virginia’s republican super-majority has passed two of the most restrictive anti-abortion bills in the country. These bills will now to go to the Senate.  One bill declares a fertilized egg a person.  The egg is fertilized prior to implanting itself in the uterus.  Implantation is when medical science considers a woman to be pregnant.  Many eggs are fertilized, but never implant themselves, are these to be considered people, too?

The second bill requires a woman wishing to obtain an abortion to undergo a “transvaginal ultrasound” prior to having the abortion done.  This is a medically unnecessary and painful, invasive procedure.  Who will be forced to pay for this procedure?  The low-income woman?  The insurance company that doesn’t want to pay for medically unnecessary procedures?

The GOP is outraged that President Obama wants to require insurances to cover birth control.  They say it is an intrusion by government into our personal lives.  I can’t think of anything more intrusive than a woman having to put her feet into the stirrups, a doctor inserting a probe into her vagina, pushing it through her cervix and into her uterus.  But the GOP in Virginia is going to try to require this.  This is the (supposedly less intrusive) government telling both a woman and a physician what they have to do before the woman can choose to have a legal procedure done.

The republican controlled House and Senate in Virginia has also declared that the state has no business urging young girls to be vaccinated (HPV) against a virus that can later cause cancer, but they have no problem with the state telling women and physicians what they HAVE to do.  Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy here?

Del. Todd Gilbert had to apologize for his remark concerning abortions, that “in the vast majority of these cases, these are matters of lifestyle convenience.”

I have known a few woman that had abortions.  They each had their own individual reasons.  They did not make the decision lightly.  And not one of them did it for “lifestyle convenience”.

 

Post Navigation