SACRAMENTO, Calif. – When a person goes missing, every second counts.  As the statewide coordinator for the AMBER, Silver, and Blue Alert programs, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) understands that time is of the essence and is using technology to help expedite the recovery process. 
 
“Whether a child or at-risk adult has gone missing or a dangerous suspect is on the run, time and details are vital,” said CHP Commissioner Warren Stanley.  “Using technology gives everyone involved in the process another tool to reach the appropriate audience with the information.”
 
As part of the various notification procedures when an alert occurs, the CHP’s Emergency Notification and Tactical Alert Center (ENTAC) will distribute the critical information to cell phones in the affected geographic area through the Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) program.  As a result, millions of consumers with WEA-capable devices and services are armed with potentially lifesaving information.
 
Due to the limited number of characters available through the WEA, the CHP is now embedding a link in each message that will direct the user to the public-facing Web site at https://www.chp.ca.gov/news-alerts.  Once there, the user will find all active alerts, along with access to related flyers that can be downloaded and distributed.
 
Social media is also being used to help expedite and grow the audience for alerts distributed by the CHP.  The public, media, and law enforcement are encouraged to follow a new Twitter account managed by ENTAC - @CHPAlerts.  Posts from this account will be limited to active AMBER, Silver, and Blue Alerts.
 
Since July 2002, the CHP has issued nearly 300 AMBER Alerts for abducted children.  Less than a decade later, in January 2011, California enacted the Blue Alert system to apprehend individuals wanted following the violent attack of a law enforcement officer; eight Blue Alerts have been issued to date.  Two years later, the Silver Alert system went online in California and there have been nearly 1,400 alerts issued for missing, at-risk adults since January 2013.
 
The mission of the CHP is to provide the highest level of Safety, Service, and Security.

• ​November 29, 2018/by Ken ChurchillIn December of 2018, the California Supreme Court will hear arguments in what is generally referred to as the Cal Fire pension case. The ruling could potentially overturn what is commonly referred to as the “California Rule.” The current interpretation of the rule is that pension benefits, once increased, cannot be reduced for existing employees even for future years of service without the agency providing a benefit of equal value to the employee.

What reforms would become possible if the Supreme Court rules that changes for future years of service are not protected by the California Rule?
To demonstrate how this ruling could be a game changer and open the door to pension reform for nearly every city and county in California, this article uses the potential savings for various reform options for the County of Sonoma.
It should be noted that any changes to the pension system if there is a favorable ruling by the court would need to be made by the governing body of each agency and if they refuse to act, could also be made by the taxpayers through the voter initiative process.
Current Situation in Sonoma County
The pension system for Sonoma County employees was founded in 1945 and up until 1993 was a sustainable and affordable system that paid career employees 2% per year of service. This would mean, for example, that after a 35 year career a retiree would collect a pension equal to 70% of their final base salary. Sonoma County employees are also eligible to receive Social Security benefits. Over the first 48 years until 1993, the pension system had accrued $355 million in total pension liabilities (money owed to retirees and earned to date by current employees).
But then, due to a series of illegal pension increases back to the date people were hired in 1998, 2003, 2004 and 2006, pensions for employees with only 30 years of employment jumped (including “spiking”) to 96% of their gross pay. After the first increase, the liability had doubled from the 1993 $355 million amount to $793 million in 1999. The liability doubled again in 9 years and hit $1.9 billion in 2009. Last year, in 2017 the pension liability reached $3.34 billion, a staggering 941% growth over 24 years.
The Growth of Sonoma County’s Pension Liability
$=Billions
To pay off the soaring liability, Sonoma County issued pension obligation bonds in 1994, 2003 and 2010 totaling $597 million dollars of principal. Paying off the bonds with interest will cost taxpayers $1.2 billion on top of their normal pension contributions. Currently, the County owes $650 million in principal and interest on the bonds that will cost them an average of $43 million per year until 2030.
In addition, the County’s contribution to the pension system (including debt service on the pension obligation bonds) has grown from $8 million in 1998 to $117 million in 2017. In other words, we have a serious math problem on our hands. While tax revenues have been growing at 3% per year, pension and healthcare costs have grown by 19%. Something has to give. In Sonoma County we have two choices, do nothing and pay higher taxes for fewer services, or, if possible (depending on the outcome of the Supreme Court case), reform our pension system to make it more equitable for taxpayers and more secure for employees and retirees.
So far, money has been taken from our roads and infrastructure maintenance budgets and the County has borrowed $597 million to pay for pensions. Soon, more and more money is going to come from cuts to fire and police protection, and services for those to in need. The retroactive pension increases not properly funded have essentially created a debt generation engine that sticks our children and grandchildren with enormous debt for services received in the past.
The Pension Increases May Have Been Illegal
In 2012 responding to a complaint I filed, the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury could not find any evidence that the County followed the law when pensions were increased. The California Government Code in Section 7507 requires that the public be notified of the future annual cost of the increase. However, records show that all of the retroactive pension increases were enacted without determining the future annual costs and the public was never notified. This is a serious issue since public notification is the only protection taxpayers have. In addition, documents uncovered by New Sonoma indicate that the agreement was for the General employees to pay 100% of the past and future cost of the increase and Safety employees to pay 50% of the cost. This requirement was never enforced by the Sonoma County Retirement Association as it should have, so the vast majority of the costs for the benefit increases have been illegally borne by the County’s taxpayers.
These same increases were enacted at the state and local level from 1999 to 2008 for almost every public agency throughout the state. Cursory investigations of other cities conducted by the California Policy Center and Civil Grand Jury’s in Marin and Sutter county found similar violations at every agency investigated. A lawsuit is currently under appeal that would void illegal increases back to the date they were enacted which would in Sonoma County’s case save taxpayers $1.2 billion over the years ahead. But even if this case fails, other reform options may be available soon as a result of a favorable supreme court ruling. Here they are:
1. Cap the Employer Contribution
A lot of problems could be fixed at the governance level if employees felt the impact of growing unfunded liabilities. As long as the current situation of the employer/taxpayer covering 100% of the unfunded liability and debt service on the bonds exists, the problem will continue to grow and reforms will be minimal because all actuarial losses fall on the taxpayer.
Capping the employer contribution at 15% of salary (still 5 times what private sector employers contribute to retirement funds for their employees) would cut pension costs in Sonoma County from $117 million to $55.4 million, a savings to the county of $61.6 million per year. And as pension costs increase over the years ahead, the employees will pay all the costs associated with the growth.
2. Split All Pension Costs 50/50 Between the County and Employees
Currently the employer contribution is 19% of payroll. The current pension bond debt service, all paid for by the employer, is 11.3% of payroll. The current employee contribution is 11.6% of payroll. Therefore Sonoma County’s total pension costs in 2017 were 42% of payroll.
Capping employer contributions at 50% of pension costs or 21% of payroll would save the county $50 million per year, a cost that would be borne by employees in additional pension contributions.
3. Provide an Opt Out for Employees to a 401k Plan
Instead of forcing employees to contribute 21% of their take-home pay to their pension, a 401k option could be created.
Existing employees could be provided with the option of moving the present value of their future pension benefit into a 401k account and opting out of the defined benefit pension system. Going forward, the County could provide them with a 10% of base salary 401k contribution which the employee could match for a 20% contribution. Then, if the employee wanted to turn their account balance into a defined benefit for life, they could purchase an annuity upon retirement using their 401k funds.
Studies show young people entering the workforce prefer the portability of a 401k plan because they don’t see themselves in the same career their entire lives. Defined benefit pension funds also punish folks who leave the system early and highly reward those that stay because they are back loaded by design.
A lot of folks might also choose this option because they may be worried about the soundness of their pension plan, which in Sonoma County’s case, they should be.
4. Improve Pension Board Governance
Require a majority of non pension fund members on the Sonoma County Employee Retirement Association (SCERA) board or move the servicing of the fund, if possible to a private entity because of the conflicts of interest that exist when board members are also part of the pension system.
5. Establish Greater Transparency
Establish a COIN Ordinance to require the County Supervisors to hire an outside negotiator during contract negotiations and to provide the public with the cost impact of any changes to the citizens ahead of approval.
6. Mandate Public/Private Pay Equity
Require the County to perform a prevailing wage study and offer new County hires salaries that are similar to what Sonoma County residents earn in the private sector for work requiring comparable education and skills.
7. Return Spending Authority to Voters 
Require voter approval of any pension obligation bonds, and require voter approval of any increases to pension formulas or increases to salaries in excess of inflation.
6. Eliminate Conflicts of Interest
Do not allow elected officials to be members of the pension system due to the obvious conflict of interest.
7. Improve Public Oversight
Create a permanent Citizens Advisory Committee on Pensions that would provide an annual study of the pension system and track the success of pension reform efforts and provide recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. All reports prepared by the committee will be posted on the Committee’s webpage on the County’s website. The committee would have the power to perform accounting and regulatory compliance audits of the Sonoma County Retirement Association, investigate any evidence of illegal acts, and recommend appropriate remedies to the Board of Supervisors. A description of any violations and any committee recommendations will be posted on the Committee’s webpage on the County’s website.
 *   *   *
Ken Churchill has over 40 years of business and financial management experience as founder, CEO and CFO of a solar energy company and environmental consulting firm. In 2012 after discovering the county illegally increased pensions without the required public notification of the cost he founded New Sonoma, and organization of financial experts and citizens to investigate the increase and inform the public. Information on New Sonoma and their findings and court case can be found at www.newsonoma.org.

Share this entry

 

-Open houses re-scheduled-
 
Quincy, CA – Plumas National Forest officials are exploring options to extend the comment period for the Over-snow Vehicle (OSV) Use Designation Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The period will be extended a minimum of two weeks.Open houses set for November 29 in Quincy and December 1 in La Porte are also being rescheduled.
“Due to the Camp Fire, we’ve decided it would be best to provide everyone more time to participate in the planning process,” according to Daniel Lovato, PNF Supervisor.The comment period extension and open house schedule will be announced within the next several days and will be publicized via the project website noted below, news release, and on social media.The DEIS discloses the comparative analysis of options being considered in designating snow areas and trails, and snow trails where grooming would occur, for public OSV use on the Plumas National Forest.A decision on the project will be made following the completion of a final EIS, expected in April 2019.  Information, including the DEIS, maps and opportunities for comment, is available on the project website at:  http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47124 .
For additional information regarding this project, contact Katherine Carpenter, Forest Environmental Coordinator at the Plumas National Forest address above or at (530) 283-7742; or kacarpenter@fs.fed.us.

By Harold Pease, Ph. D


Civil war first begins with words.  There is now little decorum or civility on the medias of both political parties who now openly call opponents liars and traitors; hostile words not previously used in respected media outlets.  Is a second civil war coming?  A July 2018, Rasmussen Reports survey poll reported most voters fear that political violence is coming, with 31% believing that a civil war will ensue within the next five years.


Ironically both major parties share this fear; 37% of Democrats and 32% of Republicans.  This is stunning but even more stunning is the poll finding that  “59% of all voters are concerned that those opposed to President Trump’s policies will resort to violence, with 33% who are Very Concerned.”  Not said, but implied in this statement, is that the Democrats, those most opposed to Trump policies, will start the violence that results in the civil war.  Rarely does a Democrat senator vote for anything supported by Trump so hostile are they to his policies.  The divide in Congress is almost total.


Many years ago at a county fair I saw a fist fight between adult males.  It did not start with punches but words.  Each referred to the other in derogative terms, followed by name calling, followed by arms to the side chests expanded almost touching, like roosters in a barn yard, this followed by descriptive phrases regarding the other’s mother, then by flung fists.  Each “upped the anti” by succumbing to the next level of angered expression.


I see the same thing in the media and todays political world.  In the 1980’s Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, and Dan Rather pretended to be objective but never were; careful viewers still knew, but civility was honored.   No one openly described their opponents as liars, traitors or murderers as they do now.  Then followed the segmentation of news into Republican (mostly Fox and talk radio) and Democrat news (MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS and NBC), each with clear bias and no pretense of both sides or even of a middle.  Viewers now choose networks that support their opinion and seek no other side.


Unfortunately Democratic politicians have been encouraging violence in their words.  Former Vice President Joe Biden wants to beat up Donald Trump “behind the bleachers.”  Senator Cory Booker wants his followers to “please get in the face of their congressmen” with their issues.  Maxine Waters’ words suggest the same with mobs.  “If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” she yelled.  Adding later, that Trump and his team should be “absolutely harassed until they decide” to change their minds.”  The Democratic Party chorus for the last two years has been to resist and obstruct any thing that Trump did and to impeach him.  There was no other real message.


Several, presumably Democratic, movie stars, playwrights rappers and rockers too are promoting violence with their words and images, and thus a civil war, some seemingly inviting the assassination of President Trump.  Rosie O’Donnell promotes a “Push Trump Off a Cliff” game.  Madonna told a crowd that she had “thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House." Robert De Niro wants to “punch him in the face.”  Comedian Kathy Griffin produced photos of her holding a fake bloody, decapitated Trump head.  The NYC Public Theater modernized their play “Julius Caesar” with a Trump-like figure playing the title role being stabbed to death by a band of angry Senators.  


Johnny Depp to an overseas crowd in the UK made an ill-considered joke: “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?” An obvious reference to actor John Wilkes Booth’s assassination of Abraham Lincoln in the last Civil War.  Rapper Big Sean in his new album “I Decided” rapped “And I might just kill ISIS with the same icepick/That I murder Donald Trump in the same night with.”  Finally, Pearl Jam of the Seattle-based rockers released a cartoon poster “that featured a bald eagle picking at the rotting corpse of President Trump on the White House lawn” (“15 Stars Who Imagined Violence Against Donald Trump, From Kathy Griffin to Pearl Jam (Photos)” The Wrap, Aug. 15, 2018).


Unfortunately the nation has now moved beyond insulting words to aggression, incited by Democratic networks, politicians and stars, and many citizens have good reason to believe that things are escalating to a point of no return.  In 2017 Senator Rand Paul, while mowing his lawn, was attacked and beat up by his neighbor over his conservative ideology.  -James Hodgkinson opened fire on a congressional GOP baseball practice, injuring five, almost killing House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.  Numerous members of congress have been accosted or received death threats for their support of Trump.  These include: Tom McClintock, Dana Rohrabacher, Tom Garrett, Martha McSally, David Kustoff, Kevin Cramer, and Claudia Tenney.


Breitbart has compiled a site called "The list is now up to 258" which documents ongoing "acts of media-approved violence and harassment against Trump supporters."  As of November 5, 2018 it was 639 and climbing fast.  For these victims the anticipated civil war has already begun having moved from words to violence and injury.


 
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College.  Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

• ISSUES
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  • 
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  
  
• SUBSCRIBE
• ABOUT
  
  

 November 18, 2018/by Marc Joffe
​Political leaders and pundits have been quick to link this month’s horrific wildfires to climate change, leading to the conclusion that California should continue and even double down on its carbon reduction policies. But the evidence suggests that these policies will make little difference in the frequency and severity of these disasters, and our scarce resources would be better spent elsewhere.
While lack of rainfall is clearly the major cause of the wildfire crisis, it is less clear that dry weather conditions can be attributed to global warming.  According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there is “low confidence” in the relationship between global warming and droughts.
Further, historical records show that California has experienced repeated droughts before anthropogenic climate change became a factor. San Francisco climate records show two years in the nineteenth century with less than 10 inches of rainfall, but no year in the 21st century with so little precipitation.  The state experienced a severe drought between 1929 and 1934, with runoff falling to levels below those seen in this decade’s water crisis.
So even if we were able to stop global warming, there is no guarantee that steady rainfall would ensue. Further, we in California, cannot stop global warming by ourselves. Since California only produces about 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions even an outright ban on fossil fuel use within our state would have minimal impact on future warming – and, of course, no impact on the warming that has already occurred.
Further, our policies come nowhere near a total ban (which would cause an economic disaster). Instead, our approaches to climate change often amount to costly tinkering around the edges. Most notably, we’re spending billions of dollars on mass transit projects in hopes of getting people to do less driving – but these efforts are producing dubious results.
Consider, for example, high-speed rail. Ideally, a bullet train linking northern and southern California would eliminate millions of automobile and airplane trips, greatly reducing carbon emissions. But the reality is that the project is way behind schedule and ridership may never reach the lofty heights projected in High Speed Rail Authority business plans.
Worse, construction in the rail corridor is producing greenhouse gas emissions now, which may not be offset for decades – if ever. The High Speed Rail Authority reported that contactor vehicles generated 1400 metric tons of CO2 in 2015 alone. But that is only a small fraction of the impact, which includes energy used to produce concrete and steel. The Authority’s stated intention is to offset these carbon impacts by planting trees, but that could be done without building a new rail system.
With the date of initial service falling back and plans for blended service impacting travel times and train frequency, it is evident that HSR will take fewer travelers off the roads much later than originally planned. Indeed, it appears that California’s passenger vehicle fleet will be primarily electric by the time HSR is ready to transport large passenger loads.
Given the project mismanagement recently identified by the State Auditor, the time seems ripe to truncate the high-speed rail effort. Money saved by downsizing the project could instead be reallocated to two projects that would immediately reduce wildfire risk:  separating trees from powerlines and thinning our overgrown forests. Reducing the likelihood of ignitions and cutting the amount of fuel available to forest fires are obvious solutions to the current crisis. By contrast, spending billions on mass transit projects whose carbon savings may not offset construction phase emissions, and which are an infinitesimal fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions, which, in turn, may not even be responsible for current and future droughts, seems like a very inefficient way of saving us from forest fires.
SEARCH
The California Policy Center is a 501c3 non-profit public charity. CA Corp. # 3295222. Federal EIN 27-2870463.

Those train buff volunteers at the museum, Gary Nelson, Tony Tucker, Kenton and Barbara McHenry,  have created a quaint early Loyalton - all dressed up for the holidays with historic building replicas, automobiles and Christmas scenes all lit.

The replica of Loyalton is well lit with realistic mill, ranch and downtown scenes.

The museum will be open December 1st and will show the movie, "Polar Express." Bring the family and enjoy Loyalton's history!

Debris and Hazardous Waste

 Fire damage can create significant health and safety hazards that may be present at individual
properties. It is recommended that structure ash is not disturbed by sorting or sifting due to potential exposure to toxic materials. If you choose to visit your property, please consider the following:
o Wear sturdy shoes (steel toes and shanks are recommended) and clothing
o Hazardous chemicals and conditions may be present
o Inspect propane tanks for visible damage before turning on
o Cover all clothing when in proximity to ash. Wear gloves, long-sleeved shirts, and
long pants to avoid skin contact, whenever possible. Goggles should be worn. Contact with wet ash may cause chemical burns or irritation on skin. Change your shoes and clothing prior to leaving the decontamination site, to avoid tracking ash into your car, home, etc.
o Anything in contact with ash should be cleaned and sanitized. Sorting through/cleaning burn debris is not recommended.
o Be aware of slip, trip, fall, puncture and overhead hazards.
o Do not use leaf blowers or do any activities that will put ash into the air.
o Wear a close fitting respirator mask that is rated N-95 or P-100 to block particles
from ash or smoke from being inhaled. N-95 respirators are well-fitted when they do not come into contact with facial hair; strap tension is adequate, not overly tightened; and masks fit across the nose bridge. A tight seal would not be possible for most children, even with a small adult-size model. People with heart or lung disease should consult their physician before using a respirator.
o The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is the only agency that certifies respirators to determine that they adequately protect people. Look for NIOSH approval on the package or label.
Do not remove ash and debris without approval from the Environmental Health Division  The county is working with various state and federal partners who will assess each property for
household hazardous waste and asbestos and remove those materials from each property. After the property has been cleared of hazardous waste, the property owner can either sign up for a state debris removal program or perform their own cleanup under oversight of the Environmental Health Department. The hazardous waste and debris removal program through the state and federal programs will not have any out of pocket costs for the property owner. The cleanup requirements for property owner cleanup are under development.
Health and Safety Precautions for Re-entry and Clean-up after Fire Page 2
Food Safety

•   Perishable food items that have not been properly stored (at or below 41 °F) for more than four
  hours is not considered safe and must be thrown out.
  
•   If your home has been damaged and you find non-perishable food items we recommend that
  you DO NOT use them. The containers may appear to be intact but high temperatures may have
  caused the seams to fail, resulting in the contents being exposed to potential contamination.
  
•   When In Doubt, Throw It Out!!
  Water Safety
  At this point, water available from your tap should be considered unsafe until the proper water tests can be completed. Boil water notices are in place for all public water systems and will be lifted at some time in the future when water is determined to be safe. If you have a private well, see handout entitled “Well Disinfection & Sampling Information”.
  

 If your well has been damaged, it may have been exposed to potential contamination and can contaminate surrounding groundwater if not repaired properly. Fire can damage the well casing, electrical conduits and piping. DO NOT use the water for consumption which includes drinking, cooking, dishwashing, oral hygiene, hand washing, bathing and pets.
o The well must be repaired by a qualified professional, properly disinfected as per Butte County Environmental Health’s (BCEH) requirements and then tested to determine the water is safe for consumption.
o Qualified professionals include licensed well drillers, pump contractors and/or certified distribution operators. Water sampling may be conducted by the Butte County Public Health (BCPH) laboratory or by a local state certified laboratory (FGL and Basic Laboratory in Chico, CA).
Septic Systems
 Fire could have damaged your septic system. The damage would have most likely occurred to
the piping between the house and the septic tank, or from the septic tank to the leach field. Damage sometimes occurs from heavy equipment such as backhoes and bulldozers used to fight the fire or to clean up debris. The repairs to the system must be done by qualified professionals as per BCEH’s requirements. 

​

Butte County- Two suspects have been arrested in conjunction with the burglary of a CAL FIRE
station during the Camp Fire.
Robert DePalma and William Erlbacher, both of Concow, have been arrested on five felony counts ranging from alleged vehicle theft to looting during an emergency and possession of stolen property.
DePalma’s and Erlbacher’s bail is set at $250,000 each. 

​

-Fire area within the national forest temporarily closed for public safety-
 
Quincy, CA – In order to ensure the safety of the public and response personnel, a portion of the Plumas National Forest within the Camp Fire area is temporarily closed now through December 5, 2018.
Generally, the closure area lies between CA Hwy 70 on the west and the Oro-Quincy Hwy on the east.
Specifically, the closure area includes: Forest Road 119 (Oro-Quincy Highway) from its closure at the intersection with the Southern forest boundary (T21N, R5E, Sec. 22 and 27) to its northern closure at its intersection with Forest Service Road 24n36 (Forest Road 36), all roads west of Forest Road 119 (Oro-Quincy Highway) to Highway 70, between its closure to the North and its closure to the South, Forest Road 36 ( 24N36) or any spur roads of Forest Road 36 from its closure at the intersection of Forest Service Road 119 to the intersection of Forest Road 36 (24N36) and Forest Road 34 (24N34), Forest Road 34 (24N34) from its intersection with Forest Service Road 36 (24N36) to its termination in T24N R6E S28. 
Some people are exempt from this closure including those with permits or contracts allowing them in the area, in addition to any federal, state, or local officer, or member of an organized rescue or firefighting force in the performance of official duty.
Questions about the temporary closure may be directed to the Feather River Ranger District at (530) 534-6500.
A copy of Forest Order No. 05-11-03-18-15, including a map of the closure area, may be found under “Alerts and Notices” on the Forest webpage at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/plumas .
For other information about the Plumas National Forest visit the Forest webpage and www.Facebook.com/usfsplumas .