County Notes (December 16, 2021)

Supes Powerless To Slow PG&E’s Coastal Parks Logging Permits — All Mendo is left with is a lot of “hope.”

THIS CONSENT AGENDA ITEM for Tuesday’s meeting alarmed a lot of locals concerned about PG&E apparently proposing to log a bunch of trees in coastal state parks: 

“Accept the informational report regarding the issuance of Emergency Coastal Development Permit EM_2021-0008 (PG&E) to remove 389 trees within California Department of Parks and Recreation jurisdiction. …” 

But there was no written “informational report.” Nor were there 389 “trees.” As emergency responders and cops like to say: “Not as reported.” 

In addition, the work, whatever it may have involved, was done weeks ago, long before PG&E’s “emergency permit” appeared on the Board’s agenda and a couple of weeks after the permit expired. Only one of the 52 “trees” were described as being more than 11 inches in diameter at breast height; the rest of the 389 original “trees” were described as “brush.” Nor was there any mention of the tree species involved or their condition. If they were older coastal pines, they might indeed be spindly or in poor shape and a possible power line hazard.

Supervisor Haschak asked that the item be pulled from the Consent Calendar, then he asked: “The emergency permit was issued on September 24 and it was void 60 days after, so it was already complete. So after the expiration of the emergency permit the applicant is required to submit a coastal development permit application and work out the proper permit. With the work being authorized to do, the 379 trees or whatever and maybe cut 52 or whatever then has the applicant submitted a coastal development permit for the remaining cutting?”

Chief Planner Julia Acker-Krog: “What is required is filing a standard coastal development permit as a follow-up. Essentially it would authorize the activities that were conducted under the emergency permit but may also require additional mitigations or something like what happened as a result of that coastal development permit process. PG&E, the applicant, has not yet filed the required follow-up coastal development permit for this particular project. But I think that's largely because we have been in discussions with the California Coastal Commission and they've been in discussion with Pacific Gas & Electric about possibly doing a more programmatic approach to their vegetation management activities. So rather than looking at them on these individual management blocks and areas of work, looking at them, the vegetation management activities and providing a permit that essentially covers all of their lines within the coastal zone area of our county and perhaps for other coastal jurisdictions as well.”

Haschak: “So it says ‘prior to the expiration of the emergency permit’ they are supposed to file that coastal development permit. They didn't do that. Is there a problem, or what?

Acker-Krog: “This is not uncommon that we've seen In Mendocino County. What I can do is work with our code enforcement division and all we can do is send letters to Pacific Gas & Electric to request that they please file the required coastal development permit. I believe that these ones have been delayed in being filed because there is this more over-arching conversation about possibly programmatic coastal development permits to authorize this work, including work that has been authorized under emergency by the county. This is not the only emergency permit that has been issued to Pacific Gas & Electric for vegetation management activities. I believe the board has reviewed three other emergency permits under prior agendas since the beginning of the summer time.”

Haschak: “I hope that PG&E follows the rules like other people have to. When is the ad hoc committee [Supervisors Glenn McGourty and Ted Williams are on a PG&E tree-cutting practices ad hoc committee] coming back with some kind of recommendation on this subject? Because each day goes by that PG&E is doing these cuts it seems like with winter coming at some point that there is not the mitigations put in place or anything to help the environment, it's a free-for-all out there for them. So I hope that there is a report coming back soon with a recommendation.”

Supervisor McGourty: “I think we are still gathering information. It's really hard to figure out how to take this on because what we are finding is that PG&E has extraordinary powers to do what they are doing. They seem to be exempt under emergency status to flaunt the law that everybody else has to follow. So I am going to RCRC [Rural County Representatives of California] and having a conversation with Diane Dillon who is a supervisor from Napa County that has been deeply involved in this and see what's happening on the statewide level to address this. So hopefully soon.”

Supervisor Dan Gjerde: “We haven't seen this report. We've heard it certainly. [No they haven’t. PG&E was in the meeting and they didn’t “report” anything.] Are we required to vote to accept it? Some people might interpret it as voting to endorse this when that's not the case. Versus simply receiving and filing the other correspondence that has been received by the board.”

County Counsel Christian Curtis: “No action is required.”

Gjerde: “So we will not take action, it is received and filed and the public was aware of this permit issued back in September.”

* * *

We couldn’t find anything about the permit being submitted or approved on the County’s website. So we have no idea what Supervisor Gjerde meant by “the public was aware of this permit back in September.” Apparently the “emergency permit” was approved by the Coastal Commission and the County’s “coastal permit administrator” without public notice.

* * *

DURING HIS SUPERVISOR REPORT, Supervisor Haschack “reported”: 

“Some of us attended the California State Association of Counties last week and our very own CEO Carmel Angelo received the President's Award for Excellence for county staff. She was the one person that was recognized out of the whole state, 58 counties, so that's a great honor for what CEO Angelo does for Mendocino County at the state levels and activities. Our very own Director of Transportation, Howard Dashiell was elected president of the California Employees Engineers Association which is an honor for him and certainly some of us participated in that ceremony and that was very good to see. … There was a broader discussion about updating the Brown Act and the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act and a discussion of hybrid approaches which are very popular and so there was also some talk in that forum about decorum, civility, and safety while prompting greater participation in meetings and people's right to free speech. I think we're all concerned about that. We are trying to find the path forward in this time of covid and pandemic and open up the process and make sure people have their free speech opportunities and keep the democratic process going.”

* * *

Supes Put Large Raise For County Counsel On Consent Calendar

Tuesday, December 14, Board Meeting Consent Calendar Item 4c:

Approval of Employment Agreement Between the County of Mendocino and Christian M. Curtis to Serve as County Counsel for the Term of August 9, 2020 through August 8, 2024, Including Compensation Effective December 26, 2021 in the Amount of One Hundred Ninety-two Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty-Six Dollars ($192,436.00)/Annually (Sponsor: Supervisor Gjerde)

current f/y cost: $39,470 Increase; includes cost of benefits

annual recurring cost: $327,141 Includes cost of benefits

Agreement/Resolution/Ordinance Approved by County Counsel: Yes

According to the attached proposed agreement Effective Dec. 26, 2022 county will also adjust County Counsel’s pay to maintain employee’s annual salary at 15% above Step 5 of Assistant County Counsel (which County Counsel himself controls, thus putting him in a position to give himself a raise by giving his assistant a raise). 

Since this would be effective in the middle of the fiscal year, and current fiscal year cost is $39,470 (“includes the cost of benefits), then the annual increase is almost $80k per year which is not mentioned anywhere in the item or attachments.

This is the same County Counsel who has lead the stumbling charge in the County’s case against the Sheriff during which he was admonished by Judge Moorman for pre-empting her ruling by having the board approve an attorney other than Dance James while the ruling was pending, the same County Counsel who has farmed out hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal services to outside counsel, and who has never reported on his department’s caseload or performance and who does not appear in the legal establishments two main attorney rating service database. 

PS. According to transparent California, Mendo DA David Eyster makes about $158k base salary and runs a much bigger office with many more duties and responsibilities. What’s next, a giant pay raise for the DA?

PPS. We sent requests to Supervisor Gjerde (who sponsored this item) and his colleagues asking for their justification of this outrageous proposal last week. No response. 

IRONICALLY, considering the unexplained and unjustified pay raise proposal for County Counsel Curtis, Tuesday's Closed Session includes this familiar item: “Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation: One Case - Harinder Grewal v. Mendocino County” which has cost the County —gasp! — $600,000 in legal fees (and counting) for outside counsel. Former Ag Commissioner Grewal alleges he was the victim of discrimination and was wrongfully terminated. Mr. Grewal's real crime was attempting to reverse the island culture that existed in the Ag Department. Grewal, obviously too professional for Mendocino County, insisted employees show up on time instead of coming in late, leaving early and running personal errands on county time. The County fired him instead of investigating the discrimination. 

THE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE has 8 or 9 attorneys on staff but every high profile legal case gets palmed off on Liebert, Cassidy & Whitmore (LCW) the pricy San Francisco legal outfit, and Carmel Angelo's go to choice for legal advice. Even if Curtis wasn't creating conflicts with the Sheriff, provoking a lawsuit, irritating the judge and making the Supes look like fools, with all the difficult cases being farmed out, what is the justification for handing him a huge pay increase? The item offers nothing in the way of justification besides the implication that he has to be paid more than his subordinate whose salary he controls.

THE GREWAL CASE is set for trial in February but these things often result in last minute settlements. Whether Grewal settles or wins, in addition to paying whatever settlement agreement is announced and at least $600k for LCW, the County will also have to pay for Grewal's attorney. Who just happens to be the Law Office of Duncan James, the Sheriff's sole choice for legal representation. Compounding the irony is that Curtis advised the Supes not to hire Duncan James because he would be too expensive! But it's Curtis who has been dragging out the fight with the Sheriff, running up the legal fees and wasting the court's (and everyone else's) time. 

CURTIS IS NOT held in high regard by the local legal fraternity (including judges, perhaps especially judges), an opinion that's supported by his inept performance in the Sheriff's case. Curtis wasn't even able to sustain a bogus restraining order against Barbara Howe, another of the CEO’s abrupt firings without any apparent justification and who is also suing the County. Despite not handling any of the tough cases, the County Counsel's office struggles to keep up with routine requests from other departments, and reviews of boilerplate contract approvals as to form and other simple matters which often take six weeks to six months or longer to get a response. 

TO SUMMARIZE: County Counsel can't handle the tough cases, can't keep up with the routine work, overruns his own budget, worked with the CEO to set the Supes up for a pointless (but expensive and time consuming) fight with the Sheriff and has managed to alienate the judge who is hearing the case. And so far they're only fighting over whether the Sheriff gets to pick his own attorney! Once the judge issues her ruling (which will almost certainly be in the Sheriff's favor) don't be surprised if the first agenda next year includes a consent calendar item for a contract with LCW to take over the case. 

SUPERVISOR MULHEREN reported on her time in Monterey (Mendocino County Today, Dec. 9 – The Grueling Work Of A Mendo Supervisor) where she reported attending well over a dozen meetings, receptions, breakfasts and other events, all in person. Of course, everyone is wearing a mask except when they’re eating or drinking (which is all the time at these plush receptions and meals). Supervisor Williams was also on board for the weeklong junket to Monterey (plus an unknown number of County staff) all riding on the taxpayer’s dime.

WHAT’S STRIKING about the Monterey meetings (aside from the squandering of public funds) is that at least three Mendo Supervisors and numerous staff had no fear of covid as they attended the CSAC Super Spreader event. Our intrepid Supervisors bravely attended in person meetings and receptions with strangers from all over California with dozens to hundreds of people present at any one gala meeting or event. Then on to the next meeting rubbing shoulders with a different set of strangers. With more opportunities for close contact in the hotels, bars, restaurants, gyms and spas not to mention sightseeing excursions around town. 

OUR BRAVE SUPERVISORS had close contact with a greater number of complete strangers in one week than they’ve had with all of their constituents in the last two years. Why take the risk since they just passed a resolution confirming the danger of in person meetings? Were they willing to expose themselves to disease so they could bring new ideas and inspiration to Mendo? Or do the Supes know that locking the public (and themselves) out of public meetings is a bogus ploy that serves no public health purpose? 

AT LEAST THREE SUPERVISORS (Williams, Haschak & Mulheren) have shown they have no problem rubbing shoulders with hundreds of strangers at public meetings in Monterey. And Haschak claims they are trying to find a way to open up the process. A good start might be to tell their imperious CEO that it’s time to open the Board chambers and welcome the Mendo public back into the process.