A Look Back at 2005
Encinitas workers get improved salaries, benefits
The City Council brought finality to months of negotiations Wednesday by approving 3.2 percent raises and increases to health and retirement benefits for city staffers...

Bussey said the premiums Encinitas pays to the California Public Employee Retirement System could increase with downturns in the economy.

Encinitas approves worker's contracts
James Bond cast the dissenting vote in the 4-1 decision to approve the contract. Bond said he was concerned that the increase in city contribution to employee pension funds might cause financial strain in the future.

Encinitas must stand with taxpayers
"In Encinitas, the City Council is scheduled to vote on a pay package that would give a staggering 35 percent raise to city workers in the form of a lavish, lifetime boost in their retirement incomes. For good measure, ordinary wages would rise 3.2 percent annually for three years. All this comes as the state government wrestles with billions of dollars in projected deficits, a precarious condition that threatens the fiscal health of local governments."

Encinitas pays city employees well and wisely, by Jerome Stocks
"The employees, not the city, will assume the lion's share of the increased cost of the pension plan enhancement"

Current Situation
The city pension projections assume a 7.75% yearly rate of return and a 3% rate of inflation. We have not found rates of return for secure investment instruments anywhere near a guaranteed 8%, in the private market. Any resulting shortfall will have to come from the taxpayers. Coming hyperinflation is a concern among many economists.

We have been unable to find the city's pension documents online.

Dan Dalager, Jerome Stocks, Jim Bond, and Maggie Houlihan no longer have copies of the memo about the Pavement Management Report sent to them by the City Engineer. The email was clearly about city business and had a substantive description of the status of the report. It also indicates that that report has already been reviewed and revised.

Additionally, Dan Dalager no longer has the correspondence asking for his assistance in avoiding taking the Pavement Management Report issue into the courts (he never responded).

It appears that the City Council (minus Barth) has made it a policy and practice to destroy important correspondence.

Why would the Council destroy a memo from the Director of Engineering about the status of a $100,000 contract?

Public records are suppose to be retained. The law requires it.

According to the City Clerk's office, the City does not archive email or have a repository of emails somewhere other than attached to council member's personal mailbox. It is incredibly easy and inexpensive to create such an archive. Some cities even post up all their council's email (e.g. Palo Alto).

The City has been playing games with electronic public records for years. In 2004, during a council meeting City Attorney Glen Sabine told the council he would write a secret memo to the council about their policy of email destruction. (Why should the law be secret?)

Is it legal to destroy correspondence that is related to city business, like the Pavement Report Memo or my letter?

Calaware states that the council majority is violating the law and that there are criminal penalties for the violations. From state law:

6200. Every officer having the custody of any record, map, or book, or of any paper or proceeding of any court, filed or deposited in any public office, or placed in his or her hands for any purpose, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years if, as to the whole or any part of the record, map, book, paper, or proceeding, the officer willfully does or permits any other
person to do any of the following:
(a) Steal, remove, or secrete.
(b) Destroy, mutilate, or deface.
(c) Alter or falsify.

6201. Every person not an officer referred to in Section 6200, who is guilty of any of the acts specified in that section, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

These are the Government Code records retention statutes governing cities:

34090. Unless otherwise provided by law, with the approval of the legislative body by resolution and the written consent of the city attorney the head of a city department may destroy any city record, document, instrument, book or paper, under his charge, without making
a copy thereof, after the same is no longer required.
This section does not authorize the destruction of:
(a) Records affecting the title to real property or liens thereon.
(b) Court records.
(c) Records required to be kept by statute.
(d) Records less than two years old.
(e) The minutes, ordinances, or resolutions of the legislative body or of a city board or commission.
This section shall not be construed as limiting or qualifying in any manner the authority provided in Section 34090.5 for the destruction of records, documents, instruments, books and papers in accordance with the procedure therein prescribed.

34090.5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 34090, the city officer having custody of public records, documents, instruments, books, and papers, may, without the approval of the legislative body or the written consent of the city attorney, cause to be destroyed any or all of the records, documents, instruments, books, and papers, if all of the following conditions are complied with:
(a) The record, paper, or document is photographed,
microphotographed, reproduced by electronically recorded video images on magnetic surfaces, recorded in the electronic data processing system, recorded on optical disk, reproduced on film or any other medium that is a trusted system and that does not permit additions, deletions, or changes to the original document, or reproduced on film, optical disk, or any other medium in compliance with Section 12168.7 for recording of permanent records or nonpermanent records.
(b) The device used to reproduce the record, paper, or document on film, optical disk, or any other medium is one which accurately and legibly reproduces the original thereof in all details and that does not permit additions, deletions, or changes to the original document
images.
(c) The photographs, microphotographs, or other reproductions on film, optical disk, or any other medium are made as accessible for public reference as the original records were.
(d) A true copy of archival quality of the film, optical disk, or any other medium reproductions shall be kept in a safe and separate place for security purposes.
However, no page of any record, paper, or document shall be destroyed if any page cannot be reproduced on film with full legibility. Every unreproducible page shall be permanently preserved in a manner that will afford easy reference.
For the purposes of this section, every reproduction shall be deemed to be an original record and a transcript, exemplification, or certified copy of any reproduction shall be deemed to be a transcript, exemplification, or certified copy, as the case may be, of the original.

The council majority is well known for ignoring the law even when the public cries foul. Example: Prop C.

Kevin Cummins

Encinitas Taxpayers Association to Oppose SDWD Rate Hike

Will Also Seek Board Seats for Non-councilmembers

ENCINITAS—In anticipation of a decision by the San Dieguito Water District (SDWD) to raise water rates, the Encinitas Taxpayers Association (ETA) is launching a grassroots campaign to defeat those rate hikes. As part of that effort, the ETA is also organizing an initiative to open up the SDWD board to non-councilmembers.

“It’s never a good time to increase water rates, but doing so in the midst of the worse economic downturn in at least a generation is particularly bad timing,” said Joe Sheffo, president of the ETA. “That aside, the rate hikes would be a bit more palatable if the body making that decision included independent ratepayers, not just councilmembers. We hope to address both issues through this effort.”

Earlier this month, SDWD announced that it would be raising water rates at least 13%. The action is said to be necessary because of the increased costs of water generally and the need for substantial upgrades to the district's treatment plant, which it jointly owns with Santa Fe Irrigation District. Under Prop 218, however, ratepayers can undo rate hikes if 50% of them disapprove.

Under current law, the district’s board consists of the five members of the Encinitas City Council. This is contrary to many water districts, which are made up of at least some independent members. The district serves Leucadia, Old Encinitas, Cardiff and parts of New Encinitas.

The ETA’s concerns about transparency at the SDWD stem from questionable financial transactions between it and the city that raise serious questions about the management practices of both. These transactions are believed to include various real estate deals, bond offerings, internal billing practices, and personnel assignments.

“The SDWD has operated in a budgetary black hole that makes transparency nearly impossible for a regular citizen,” said Kevin Cummins, vice president of the ETA. “Despite that opaqueness, we have been able to piece together many areas where the SDWD is vulnerable to misuse by the City. This is the right time to open up the district to independent oversight.”

Those living in parts of the city served by SDWD should expect visits from ETA members and others over the next few weeks. Ratepayers will be asked to complete and submit a postcard that will then be presented to the board at its Feb 24 meeting at City Hall.

Founded in 1986, the Encinitas Taxpayers Association is a grassroots organization dedicated to ensuring transparency and accountability from the city of Encinitas and its councilmembers,

This was the comments made to the SANDAG board on May 15 by the Eckfields.

Helen’s SANDAG Presentation
My name is Helen Nielsen-Eckfield. My husband and I live in Carlsbad.

I want to thank you for letting us make a brief presentation to you about this project.
We have been working on the Train Stop at the Del Mar Fairground for the past 3 years.

I want to begin by thanking and congratulating Gary Gallegos who, after this committee added the study of the train stop to the scope of the SANDAG study last March 15, 2008… Gary committed to us that he would have a study of the environmental issues done…. And a budget done by May of 2009

And here we are on May 15 and we have the figures.

As many of you know my husband and I have had two wonderful organizations doing pro-bono work for us on this all this time…. and I am happy to say that the SANDAG budget figures and our pro-bono Engineer’s figures are the same.

We also attempted to work with Assemblyman Martin Garrick to provide an amendment to his bill which will add at least 14 more days of racing to the Del Mar season.

Our amendment would have required that the Thoroughbred Race concessionaire, who in 2007 earned just under 1 million dollars per day, just from betting…. to build the train stop before they received the additional days of racing.

Read more »

"We haven't really had any discussions about the recession scenarios."Barth, on the economic downturn.

We're putting all the power in their hands and giving them our checkbook, it's crazy" Dalager said about the new fire agency. Dalager has power over the city's budget, pension plans, and a bonding liability.

"What people don't understand is that the public process always takes time," Houlihan said regarding the Hall property park.

To read more quotes and learn about their context, read the January Newsletter.

UCSD is hosting a public forum on the US Economic Crisis

Date: 10/3/2008
Event Time: 5:00 PM - 6:30 PM
Title: The U.S. Financial Crisis
Location: Institute of the Americas Building
Room Name: Hojel Auditorium
Room Number: Plaza
Sponsor: The Rady School of Management and the Department of Economics