Eye On Modesto

Thoughts and observations about Modesto and Stanislaus County

Archive for the category “Uncategorized”

15 Jan 2012
1 Comment

The Gutting of the Tin Cup By the Modesto City Council

By Emerson Drake

Time Is Now Clean Up Politics – Tin Cup

Tin Cup Change 6/7/05

TO:  Mayor and Councilmembers

FROM: City Attorney

SUBJECT: Proposed Revision to theModestoMunicipal Code

CONTACT: Michael D. Milich, City Attorney, mmilich@modestogov.com, x75284

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

Introduction of an ordinance amending Section 2-8.01 of Chapter 8 of Title 2 of the

Modesto Municipal Code increasing the amount of campaign contributions over the prior 48

months that triggers a conflict of interest from $1,000 to $3,000, clarifying that campaign

contributions received by councilmembers in connection with their candidacy for any other

elective office do not count towards the $3,000 limit, and eliminating the limitation on

contributions in the week preceding the election.

BACKGROUND AND REASON FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Modesto Municipal Code Section 2-8.01, et seq. (“TIN CUP Ordinance”) prohibits a

councilmember from exerting any influence on a City decision in which he/she has reason to

know they have a financial interest.  The ordinance states that a councilmember has a prescribed

financial interest if the decision will have a material effect on a major campaign contributor to

that member.  A major campaign contributor is defined under the ordinance to mean a person or

entity that has contributed $1,000 or more in the aggregate over the past 48 months.  The

ordinance was adopted by the City Council in 1986 and has basically remained unchanged since

that time.

The ordinance also imposes a reporting requirement in addition to those imposed on

candidates by the Fair Political Practices Act.  Finally, the ordinance prohibits contributions

exceeding $99.00 in the final week preceding the election and continuing until the certification

of the election results.

On May 10, 2005, the Modesto City Council considered a letter from Rob Ellett, Chairman

of the Government Relations Committee of the Chamber of Commerce which requested that the

Council eliminate the TIN CUP ordinance.  By motion of the Council this issue was referred to

the Audit Committee.  The Audit Committee met on June 2, 2005, and unanimously

recommended that the TIN CUP ordinance be amended in the following respects:

· The $1,000 limit be raised to $3,000.Mayor and Councilmembers

Proposed Revision to theModestoMunicipal Code

Page 2

· The ordinance be amended to clarify that it does not apply to campaign

contributions received by a councilmember in connection with that

councilmember’s candidacy for any other elective office.

· The limitation on contributions in the week preceding the election be eliminated.

The changes recommended by the Audit Committee are set forth in the attached

ordinance.

MICHAEL D. MILICH

City Attorney

MDM/sw

Attachment

cc: City Manager

City Clerk

How it was passed: 6/28/05

This item removed from Consent.
B. Ordinance 3391-C.S. amending the Section 2-8.01 of the Modesto Municipal Code and repealing Section 2-8.03 of the Modesto Municipal Code relating to campaign reform (Tin Cup).
· Motion approving final adoption of Ordinance 3391-C.S. amending the Section 2-8.01 of the Modesto Municipal Code and repealing Section 2-8.03 of the Modesto Municipal Code relating to campaign reform (Tin Cup) recommended.

ACTION: By Motion (Keating/O’Bryant; majority; Dunbar, Jackman no; Marsh absent) approved the final adoption of Ordinance 3391-C.S. amending the Section 2-8.01 of the Modesto Municipal Code and repealing Section 2-8.03 of the Modesto Municipal Code relating to campaign reform (Tin Cup) recommended.

http://ci.modesto.ca.us/ccl/agenda/ar/2005/06/ar050614-08.pdf

http://ci.modesto.ca.us/ccl/minutes/2005/cc050628.asp

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , ,
13 Jan 2012

The GOP Plan to Steal The Election

By EOM Staff

 
Wisconsin, Florida and Ohio have passed laws recently which RESTRICT VOTER REGISTRATION DRIVES!  They are not just attempting to disenfranchise voters, they are trying to prevent them from even registering to vote. 
 
Take Joy Leiberman of Missouri.  She is 80 years old and has been voting for 60 years.  She won’t be able to vote this year because her birth certificate DOES NOT LIST HER MIDDLE NAME!  Really?  Is it appropriate to prevent someone from voting because birth certificates from 80 years ago don’t contain all the information they do now?
 
Or Larry Butler, born in 1926 in South Carolina, when birth certificates were often not issued to blacks.  If Mr. Butler wants to vote in the presidential election this year, he will have to pay $150 to get the documents now required by South Carolina law.  Many people born in the 20s and 30s do not have birth certificates because they were delivered by mid-wives.  They simply do not have the documentation necessary for some of the new voting ID laws.
 
The Republicans know that if they can shave off 1% – 2% of the voting public, they can swing the election.  But what an under-handed, un-American way to win.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment
11 Jan 2012
2 Comments

Good Taste or Tastes Good?

Last night we got an example of what kind of politician Councilman Dave Cogdill is going to be. He received a $1,000 campaign contribution from Chris Tyler and then in committee voted for Mr. Tyler for the Planning Commission.  Good Taste would suggest he recuse himself from the vote. Tastes Good is the flavor of large campaign contributions to a politician.

While he likes the taste it leaves a sour sensation in our mouths.  

How about you?

Posted in Uncategorized
10 Jan 2012
1 Comment

Today’s MID Meeting

Well it was as rowdy and contentious as any I’ve seen. The public’s distrust of the senior members of the Board, Tom Van Groningen, Paul Warda, and Glen Wild and especially General Manager Allen Short was not only palpable but jumped right out at all of those present.

No one trusted Allen Shorts benign comment “it’s just a sale of 2,200 acre feet to the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) that could end up at over 25,000 acre feet per year for 60 or more years.  But today we’re only discussing the sale of 2,000 acre feet.”

This was in the Board agenda report that was available at the door and on the website www.mid.org . 

The first speaker was John Duarte, who laid it on the line regarding his belief the water was more important to the citizens and farmers of the valley than it was to the CCSF. John was a nonstop ball of fire or to better describe it he came out both guns blazing, loaded for bear and I hope he’ll send us his speech for publication here.

His finish was greeted by resounding applause from the audience, which irritated Board President Van Groningen to no end.  Speaker after speaker got up and deplored the thought of selling our water to the bay area.  The audience, many who attend on a regular basis, were obviously fed up with Van Groningen’s restrictive controlling ways and continued to applaud the speakers.

Several asked why the public meetings and the accompanying comments hadn’t been recorded.  Due to schedule conflicts I only went to one of the four public meetings which were held and the sentiment there was overwhelmingly against any sale what so ever.  According to comments made today the others were the same.

When Van Groningen claimed he had heard many comments for the sale at meetings he was laughed at.  Another speaker suggested this was why they didn’t record the meetings so they could spin the responses and deny what really happened.

Dave Thomas, President of the Stanislaus Taxpayers Association, during his allotted five minutes, tried to delineate the mismanagement of MID since the arrival of Allen Short but even though he hurried he ran out of time for the obvious reason there are just so many to recount.

Among the ones he mentioned were the Mountain House debacle which is still losing us Millions each year, the under funded MID pension plan, the four cities fiasco where we still have approximately $3.5 Million worth of equipment just sitting around wasting away that will never be used, the $6 Million Don Pedro warrantee allowed to lapse on a roof there, a ‘new’ water treatment plant that could cost $80Million to replace or repair, and of course the Bio-mass plant which cost ratepayers 2 plus million to get out of the lawsuit that attorney O’Laughlin said we didn’t have to worry about.

MID attorney Tim O’Laughlin snarled at Dave Thomas within seconds of Thomas’ 5 minute signal sounding.  Why he did that could be considered obvious.

O’Laughlin has been taking fire in recent months for dragging his feet and placing unnecessary obstacles in the way of Public Information Requests (see today’s editorial page, letters to the Editor of the Bee.)  But apparently he felt the need to personally attack Dave Thomas for his remarks about Allen Short and Thomas wanting to finish a final sentence.

At the end of the meeting Director Larry Byrd made a motion to shelve the project, which died for lack of a second.

Nock Blom explained he wanted to get all of the information before he made a decision.

The outcome was 4-1 with Larry Byrd being the only dissenter.

I only wish I could do justice to all of the eloquent speeches given today but I can’t.  So please everyone take a moment and comment to www.EyeOnModesto.com   You all deserve to be heard and I’ll make sure everyone gets posted.

.

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged ,
08 Jan 2012
1 Comment

Will Candidate and now Councilman Dave Lopez Make Good on His Word?

By Emerson Drake

On October 24, 2011, Dave Lopez was being interviewed on Athens Abell’s “On Watch” television show when he made some promises to his constituents. One of them was in response to Ms. Abell’s question regarding the misuse of SCAP and NSP2 funds.  “If the audit comes back and it says there has been a misappropriation of funds and it’s this persons department will you personally call for their resignation?”

Dave Lopez’s response was “Absolutely, absolutely, that is what you should count on your local officials for. You find the bad piece and you cut it away.”  Yet the findings are in and Joe Muratore has been potentially threatened with debarment because of his misdeeds. Which means he could be prevented from ever having anything to do with government funded financing and the question we’ve asked Susana Wood, City Attorney, is will Modesto be barred from future participation in federal funds if Mr. Muratore remains on the City Council.  To this point we haven’t received an answer.

Quite honestly we don’t expect to receive one since she’s the council’s attorney and not the attorney for the citizens ofModesto.

.

Muratore’s fellow City Council members have remained completely silent including Dave  Lopez. This is an extremely sad state of affairs forModesto.  We have enough black eyes in the nation’s perception without having a councilman spreading his particular form of greed throughout the city’s business.

We can’t forget the $48,000 dollars still in question between Mr. Muratore and his business partner Ryan Swehla and Swehla’s business partner Scott Monday.

It appears these men have conspired to keep as much of the NSP2 money for themselves as possible by controlling the disbursement of funds from the city (remember the contractor couldn’t apply for more money because of the $1.2Million saved for Muratore’s Benchmark Realty’s use on the apartment on which Benchmark made the $62,500 commission).

Will Dave Lopez follow through on the ideal his campaign promise was based on, or is it business as usual in the family owned and operated Modesto?

It’s time for Modesto’s citizens to clean house and get respect back for their City Council. If any one on the city council remains either quiet or in support of Mr. Muratore they are part of the problem and not the solution.

To listen to Dave Lopez’s words go to

http://www.youtube.com/user/mrsathensabell#p/u/2/Ga6xNbp6XOM

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged ,
08 Jan 2012

Does Mitt Romney Know What’s Going On?

EOM Staff
 
During last night’s Republican debate, Mitt Romney was asked if thought states should be allowed to ban contraception.  He hemmed and hawed and the question was repeated.  His comment was that “contraception is working just fine.  I don’t know if a state has a right to ban contraception.  No state wants to!” he told moderator George Stephanopolous.  He then wondered why he was being asked such a silly question.  He also said he couldn’t imagine a state pursuing such a policy.  Obviously this man who wants to be our President is completely unaware of what is going on in America.  Missouri recently voted down the personhood amendment on their ballot.  There are a handful of states that will vote this year on a personhood amendment.  So, yes, Mitt – several states are hoping to ban birth control!
 
While proposed amendments don’t exactly say that granting “personhood” to a fertilized egg will end birth control, it will, in effect, ban IUDs and the birth control pill.  Both of these methods simply prevent the fertilized egg from implanting itself in the lining of the uterus.  If a fertilized egg is considered a person, these methods will be banned.
 
Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are the only GOP candidates who have not signed a pledge with Personhood USA to declare that a fertilized egg is a person.  However, they have both stated that they believe life begins at conception, which certainly leaves the door open to the next step – preventing American women from using birth control.
 
Yes, there are many important issues to consider when you vote.  The economy, jobs, health-care, preventing future wars….but if women lose the right to determine how many children they have and when they have them, they are losing one of the more basic human rights.  Consider the long-term effects.  If a young married woman can’t use birth control, she will probably start having a baby every other year.  That prevents her from having a career. The more children she has, the harder it will be to provide for them.  Doctor’s visits, immunizations, dental care, vision care, clothes, food, text books, shoes, college…  Our schools are already over-crowded.  There are more Americans living in poverty now than since before World War II.  The programs to assist low-income families are strained and in many cases, closing down.  And if birth control is banned, all of these problems will become even more severe.
 
So before you vote in November, carefully consider all the things that are important to you.  And remember, birth control is important to millions of American women.  If you have a mother, a sister, an aunt, a wife, a daughter…birth control is important to them.  And it should be important to all the men in their lives, too.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment
08 Jan 2012

Why Are Voting Rights Being Restricted?

By EOM Staff

 
Right wing politicians have long been opposed to a national photo identification card, but are making a massive effort to institute a photo ID requirement for voting.  The Republicans are now waging a battle against the American voter.  Laws are being sought that restrict access to the voting booth.  Laws that will disproportionately harm people of color, low income people and both young and elderly voters.
 
Many of these bills have been modeled on legislation drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council.  This is a conservative advocacy group whose founder explained:  “Our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down”.
 
The Justice Department recently blocked South Carolina’s new law requiring voters to show photo Ids at the polls.  They did this based on data submitted by South Carolina that showed minority voters were about 20% less likely to have the acceptable photo ID required at the polling places.
 
The number of voters who may be disenfranchised by this wave of legislation is estimated to be upward of 5 million.  Statistically, most of these would be expected to vote along Democratic lines.  These efforts to quash voter participation are not genuine, grassroots movements, but have relied on funding from people like the Koch brothers.
 
Here are some examples from the Modesto Bee’s recent opinion page about the results of voter restriction:
 
In Nashville, 93 year old Thelma Mitchell had a state issued ID.  An ID that she used as a cleaner at the state capitol building for over 30 years.  This ID allowed her access to the governor’s office, but she was recently told that it wasn’t good enough to get her into the voting booth.
 
Darwin Spinks, an 86 year old World War II veteran from Tennessee, went to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get a photo ID for voting purposes, since drivers over 60 there are issued driver’s licenses without photos.  After waiting in two lines, he was told he had to pay $8.  Requiring a voter to pay a fee to vote has been unconstitutional since the poll tax was outlawed in 1964.
 
Another elderly Tennessee woman was initially denied a voter ID when her birth certificate with her maiden name did not match her married name.  She was unable to locate her decades old marriage license.  To read the Bee’s entire opinion, click here: http://www.modbee.com/2012/01/05/2013369/voter-id-laws-often-end-up-restricting.html
 
Civil rights groups say the restrictions amount to an attack on voting rights on a level not seen since segregation.  An estimated 100 civil rights organizations marched from New York City’s Upper East Side to the United Nations last month to draw attention to the mounting problem of voter suppression in communities of color across the nation.  Many of the proposed laws will require extensive documentation in order to obtain a voter ID card.  It is typically minorities, low income and again the elderly or young who lack the necessary documentation.
 
The real election outcomes in 2012 will most likely hinge more on the battle between billionaire political funders like the Kochs versus the thousands of people in the streets demanding – ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE!
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment
06 Jan 2012

Even the City of Modesto Punishes the Residential Electricity User

By Emerson Drake

When people pay their utility bill I think everyone probably notices the 6% Utility tax added to the bottom.  And maybe you think everyone has to pay it, but you’d be wrong.

On November 29, 2011 the City of Modesto Finance Department sent a letter to businesses reminding them of the $1,500 annual maximum user tax ceiling. This is a combined tax ceiling encompassing electric, gas, telephone, cable and cellular.

So Modesto may need money to pay its police and fire but it doesn’t believe in equal taxation.

The city’s finance department even goes a step further, if you prepay your tax they’ll notify the providers of these services to stop charging you the 6% user tax.  If you don’t prepay and fail take advantage of the city’s “offer” it is your responsibility to request a refund of any overpayment you might have made.

Now let me see if I have this correct.  The tax money all goes into the same pot to pay the bills and we’re all required to pay the 6% utility user tax, except for those that hit the ceiling.

Now the Supreme Court says Corporations are people too.  But Modesto says they’re ‘special people’ who don’t have to pay the same taxes as you and I.

And just for curiosity’s sake we’ll be asking the city how many and who took advantage of this prepayment if any.

Don’t worry; we’ll let you know too.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment
06 Jan 2012
1 Comment

MID is Ignoring and Delaying Public Information Requests

By Enerson Drake

In order to obtain information from  public agencies  they otherwise would prefer to keep removed from the public eye, we sometimes find it necessary to make Public Information Requests.  Officially it’s known as California Code 6250-6270.

It requires public agencies to respond to the request within 10 working days and has an emergency extension of two weeks if invoked.

But MID Attorney Tim O’Laughlin reads the code differently than any other attorney we’ve encountered.  He seems to believe MID can ignore, purposefully misunderstand and  delay indefinately answering questions put to it, and basically flaunts the regulations with complete disregard to the law.

We’ve had Public Record Requests in since October that the MID legal staff refuses to acknowledge.  When a request was made on November 16, 2011  for three pieces of information, we received only one on December 19, and that was after we prompted them yet again.  The second was pushed off indefinitely ( Tim O’Laughlin  basically said you’ll get it when we feel like giving it to you),  the third piece requested at the same time was dutifully ignored.

When we reminded MID of the second and third items, attorney Tim O’Laughlin then has attempted to restart the clock.

Is he working in conjuction with MID General Manager Allen Short and the three members of the old guard, Tom Van Groningen, Paul Warda, and Glenn Wild?  These are the men responsible for MID’s continuing mismanagement and have all voted for the last rate hikes of 7.5% (last year) and the recent 2% increase.

MID is owned by the ratepayers but these men have run it into the ground and need to be stopped.

This delay of information should not and will not be tolerated by the public.

Here is a link to the  California  Code: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=06001-07000&file=6250-6270

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , ,
04 Jan 2012
7 Comments

Residential Customers pay 82% more for Electricity than Industrial Customers

By Emerson Drake

Yes I know it’s a surprise for most people but if you pay more than $100 dollars a month you are paying almost twice what industrial customers pay.

Ok, so you want the specific breakdown? Here it is:

Industrial customers  pay $0.085 per KWH.

Home customers  start paying at $0.1367 KWH for the first 500 KWH (kilowatt hours) which equals the first $68.35 of your electric bill.

From there on they charge you $0.1498 KWH or 82% more than industrial customers pay.

Commercial customers pay $0.121 KWH, so residential is 73% more than commercial.

Literally, everyone else pays less than the average residential user.  Now there are breaks for low income and medical customers but residential users pay for that, too.

MID retail revenues come to approximately $300M.  Of the $300M, Residential pays $133M, Commercial $87M, and Industrial pays $60M.

So while residential users only consume 32% of the total electricity sold they pay for 44%.

Since all of the money MID collects is thrown into the pot to pay their bills, basically residential sales are helping to subsidize all of the rest of MID business.

Now don’t forget the monthly $12.50 ‘user’ fee they charge just to have a line to your home.  And it’s charged even if you don’t buy electricity from them. And there are a lot of residential users 92,160 vs 19,219. We are the people electing the MID Board and yet we are the ones paying the most.

Totals of revenue vs power consumption

Residential:    $132,690,000M         893,956 KWH

Commercial:  $ 87,000,000M          726,854 KWH

Industrial:       $ 66,503,000M          786,935 KWH

Other:             $12,868,000M          120,286 KWH

For this we can thank longtime MID Board members Tom Van Groningen and Paul Warda along with MID General Manager Allen Short. During their time on the Board we went from owing less than $100Million to an astronomical amount of $1.2Billion Dollars.

The term mismanagement just doesn’t fully do justice in describing their actions during this time.

The following is the MID report I pulled the information for this article.

MIDAR2009-FINAL[1]

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged ,

Post Navigation

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →