◼ Proposed Humboldt County cuts squeeze departments: DA, DHHS, public defender all warn cuts will carry consequences
Thadeus Greenson/The Times-Standard
Posted: 05/23/2011 02:30:13 AM PDT
Proposed Humboldt County cuts squeeze departments: DA, DHHS, public defender all warn cuts will carry consequences
While much of the county budget debate has swirled around impacts to the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office, the proposed across-the-board cuts will pinch other departments as well.
The Humboldt County District Attorney's Office is contemplating a drastic scale-back of its Child Abuse Services Team, or CAST. The 8 percent across-the-board cut will mean the Department of Health and Human Services will be unable to leverage millions of dollars in matching state and federal programs and will have to scale back its focus to mandated programs.
The proposed cuts would also force the Public Defender's Office to lay off two senior attorneys, which would likely lead to the court appointing private attorneys to pick up some of the office's case load. That could result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in added expenses for the county.
”We're looking at some major, major impacts,” said Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos. “I'm not trying to sound bleak but, candidly, I don't see a silver lining.”
At recent meetings held to gather public input, numerous speakers said the Sheriff's Office, which may also see a steep funding reduction from the state, should be insulated from cuts at all costs. What would it take to keep deputies on the streets, they asked.
Humboldt County Administrative Officer Phillip Smith-Hanes told residents at a McKinleyville meeting that leaving out cuts to the Sheriff's Office would mean devastating
18 percent cuts for other county departments because it is -- by far -- the largest benefactor of the general fund.
Now, not only are other department heads scrambling to figure out how to lop 8 percent off their budgets -- many of which are also getting squeezed by state reductions -- they're also concerned about the county slicing a bit deeper.
Even at 8 percent, some say the cuts are penny wise and pound foolish.
Nine deputy public defenders recently penned a letter to the Times-Standard claiming that even the proposed cuts mean hundreds of thousands of dollars in added general fund expenses for the county.
To accommodate the proposed across-the-board cuts, the office is looking at laying off two senior attorneys, which would yield a maximum savings of about $275,000, according to the letter. However, the county is mandated to provide a defense attorney to anyone who cannot afford one, which simply leaves no wiggle room when it comes to the Public Defender Office workload. If the office doesn't have an attorney available to take on a case, the court will appoint a private attorney, billing the hourly rate of $65 to the county.
According to the letter, that could mean the county will end up spending as much as $675,000 over the course of the fiscal year simply to yield an upfront savings of less than half that.
”This shortsighted decision will cost us all money,” the letter states.
The letter also states the proposed budget would cause the office to immediately seek to be relieved from all cases in the Hoopa/Klamath/Trinity Court, as well as the Garberville Court, which would necessitate that anyone needing a public defender travel to court dates in Eureka.
Gallegos said his department is potentially looking at taking hits from all sides.
In addition to the proposed county cuts, he said his office will also potentially lose some $160,000 in state funding if a portion of the Vehicle Licensing Fee is not extended. Cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services will also impact the DA's CAST program, Gallegos said.
For some 15 years, DHHS has contributed about $280,000 to the ongoing operation of CAST, which comprises specially trained individuals from Child Welfare Services, the DA's Office, the DA's Victim Witness Assistance Program, local law enforcement agencies, Probation and other agencies. The idea is that the team is better able to investigate and prosecute child abuse allegations.
But this year, DHHS is taking a 17.4 percent reduction in state funding in addition to the proposed county cuts, which is strongly impacting its ability to leverage matching state and federal funds. Consequently, Director Phillip Crandall said, it has had to pull its funding of CAST, though it has pledged to keep allocating staff positions to the team.
”While we have historically provided that support for CAST because it's a valuable service and good for our children, we don't have sufficient funds to carry that,” Crandall said.
Gallegos said he's currently looking to supplant the money that traditionally came from DHHS. As things stand, Gallegos said, he will be able to keep CAST going, but he worries further cuts could put it in jeopardy.
As an example, Gallegos said that senior Deputy District Attorney Max Cardoza and Assistant Deputy District Attorney Wes Keat are planning on retiring this year. He said their salaries are in his proposed budget -- which comes in with an 8 percent cut -- but the county has a hiring freeze in place, and he's concerned the county may not approve refilling the positions.
If those positions were to wind up frozen, Gallegos said it would severely impact his office.
Both Crandall and Gallegos said CAST is a priority, but both stated it is not a state-mandated program, meaning at some point, it could be dropped due to cuts.
”We're going to look at every feasible option to keep CAST functioning,” Gallegos said.
Gallegos said he thinks it's important to remember that public safety is a joint effort that cuts across multiple departments. He said there's no question deputies are needed to enforce laws, but said prosecutors are also needed to bring offenders to justice, probation officers are needed to help ensure ex-convicts don't re-offend and DHHS officials are necessary to provide mental health services, investigate health code violations and protect children and vulnerable adults.
”It's a system that requires balance,” Gallegos said.
Thadeus Greenson can be reached at 441-0509 or tgreenson@times-standard.com.
Showing posts with label Grants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Grants. Show all posts
5.23.2011
5.24.2007
May 5, 2006 Public Records Act Request granted
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 11:03:38 -0700
To: "Gallegos, Paul"
"Modell, Linda"
From: [Rose Welsh]
Subject: Fwd: RE: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
Cc: "County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard" ,
"Keat, Wesley"
Glenn Franco Simmons
May 5, 2006
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
Mr. Gallegos:
According to the Government Code cited below, you cannot refuse to give me the information on all of the grants received by your office. That information has nothing to do with pending litigation, as grant information if prepared for the grantors, not for pending litigation. The pending litigation provision under section 6254(b) has no applicability to the domestic violence and statutory rape information.
You are already in violation of the public records act requirements, as this information should have been delivered to me by April 28th 2006.
Failure to deliver the complete information requested by Monday, May 8th, 2006 at 10:00 am will result in litigation.
Under the "pending litigation" exemption from the disclosure of public records, a document is protected from disclosure only if it was specifically prepared for use in litigation. City of Hemet v Superior Court (1995, 4th Dist) 37 Cal App 4th 1411, 44 Cal Rptr 2d 532.
"Pending litigation," which focuses on the purpose of the document, serves to protect documents created by a public entity for its own use in anticipation of litigation. Fairley v Superior Court (1998, 2nd Dist) 66 Cal App 4th 1414, 78 Cal Rptr 2d 648.
A document is protected from disclosure under the pending litigation exemption only if the document was specifically prepared for use in litigation County of Los Angeles v Superior Court (2000, 2nd Dist) 82 Cal App 4th 819, 98 Cal Rptr 2d 564.
Rosemarie Welsh
cc:
"County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard"
"Keat, Wesley"
Glenn Franco Simmons
***
Subject: RE: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:51:39 -0700
From: "Modell, Linda"
To: "Rose Welsh"
Cc: "County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard"
"Gallegos, Paul"
"Keat, Wesley"
Ms. Welsh - The documents you have requested are available for you to pick up at the District Attorney's Office. There is a total of 1,454 pages @.25/pg totalling $363.50. Please make your check payable to the Humboldt County District Attorney - General Fund.
The records do not contain documents from the Spousal Abuse Prosection Program or the Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program. These documents are the subject of pending litigation and per advice of County Counsel and Government Code section 6254(b) we are not able to disclose at this time. We will be happy to provide them once the lawsuit has resolved. Please let us know if you wish them to be provided at that time.
Two programs that the District Attorney is not the grantee of, and therefore we do not have complete information on, can be requested from the agencies that administer them. They are the Marijuana Suppression Program administered by the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office and the NC3TF administered by the Marin County District Attorney's Office.
-----Original Message-----
From: peoplearefunny [mailto:peoplearefunny@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:35 AM
To: District Attorney
Cc: County Administrator Office; Falor, Tammy
Subject: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
April 3, 2006
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE
Please provide me with the following records in your possession:
REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:
Please provide the following records in your possession:
Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:
1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds
2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
A. This is a request made under the California Public Records Act. [Government Code 6250-6277].
B. By law you have 10 calendar days in which to respond to this request. [Government Code 6253(c)].
C. The Public Records Act mandates that public records be open to inspection and that every person has a right to inspect any public record unless the record is specifically exempt from disclosure. Unless exempt, upon a request for a copy of records that "reasonably describes an identifiable record or records" you are required to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering costs of duplication. [Government Code 6253].
D. In the event that there is any uncertainty as to the identity of any record sought, you are affirmatively required to assist the requesting party in better defining the request so that the records can be located and made available. [Government Code 6253.1].
E. You are required to justify in writing the withholding of any record. [Government Code 6253]. The burden of establishing an exemption is on the public agency. [Vallejos v. California Highway Patrol, 89 CA3d 781, 787 (1979)].
F. The Public Records Act does not limit access to a public record based upon the purpose for which the record is being requested, if the record is otherwise subject to disclosure. [Government Code 6257.5].
G. Agencies are not permitted to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial. [Government Code 6253(d)].
H. If a reasonably segregable portion of a record is exempt by law from production, that portion shall be deleted and the balance of the record shall be provided for inspection. [Government Code 6253(a)].
I. The legislative policy behind the Public Records Act favors disclosure. [Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley, 76 CA3d 931, 941 (1977)].
J. Any authorized fees will be paid to you on delivery, pursuant to an itemized invoice.
Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel
To: "Gallegos, Paul"
"Modell, Linda"
From: [Rose Welsh]
Subject: Fwd: RE: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
Cc: "County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard" ,
"Keat, Wesley"
Glenn Franco Simmons
May 5, 2006
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
Mr. Gallegos:
According to the Government Code cited below, you cannot refuse to give me the information on all of the grants received by your office. That information has nothing to do with pending litigation, as grant information if prepared for the grantors, not for pending litigation. The pending litigation provision under section 6254(b) has no applicability to the domestic violence and statutory rape information.
You are already in violation of the public records act requirements, as this information should have been delivered to me by April 28th 2006.
Failure to deliver the complete information requested by Monday, May 8th, 2006 at 10:00 am will result in litigation.
Under the "pending litigation" exemption from the disclosure of public records, a document is protected from disclosure only if it was specifically prepared for use in litigation. City of Hemet v Superior Court (1995, 4th Dist) 37 Cal App 4th 1411, 44 Cal Rptr 2d 532.
"Pending litigation," which focuses on the purpose of the document, serves to protect documents created by a public entity for its own use in anticipation of litigation. Fairley v Superior Court (1998, 2nd Dist) 66 Cal App 4th 1414, 78 Cal Rptr 2d 648.
A document is protected from disclosure under the pending litigation exemption only if the document was specifically prepared for use in litigation County of Los Angeles v Superior Court (2000, 2nd Dist) 82 Cal App 4th 819, 98 Cal Rptr 2d 564.
Rosemarie Welsh
cc:
"County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard"
"Keat, Wesley"
Glenn Franco Simmons
***
Subject: RE: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:51:39 -0700
From: "Modell, Linda"
To: "Rose Welsh"
Cc: "County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard"
"Gallegos, Paul"
"Keat, Wesley"
Ms. Welsh - The documents you have requested are available for you to pick up at the District Attorney's Office. There is a total of 1,454 pages @.25/pg totalling $363.50. Please make your check payable to the Humboldt County District Attorney - General Fund.
The records do not contain documents from the Spousal Abuse Prosection Program or the Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program. These documents are the subject of pending litigation and per advice of County Counsel and Government Code section 6254(b) we are not able to disclose at this time. We will be happy to provide them once the lawsuit has resolved. Please let us know if you wish them to be provided at that time.
Two programs that the District Attorney is not the grantee of, and therefore we do not have complete information on, can be requested from the agencies that administer them. They are the Marijuana Suppression Program administered by the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office and the NC3TF administered by the Marin County District Attorney's Office.
-----Original Message-----
From: peoplearefunny [mailto:peoplearefunny@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:35 AM
To: District Attorney
Cc: County Administrator Office; Falor, Tammy
Subject: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
April 3, 2006
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE
Please provide me with the following records in your possession:
REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:
Please provide the following records in your possession:
Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:
1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds
2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
A. This is a request made under the California Public Records Act. [Government Code 6250-6277].
B. By law you have 10 calendar days in which to respond to this request. [Government Code 6253(c)].
C. The Public Records Act mandates that public records be open to inspection and that every person has a right to inspect any public record unless the record is specifically exempt from disclosure. Unless exempt, upon a request for a copy of records that "reasonably describes an identifiable record or records" you are required to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering costs of duplication. [Government Code 6253].
D. In the event that there is any uncertainty as to the identity of any record sought, you are affirmatively required to assist the requesting party in better defining the request so that the records can be located and made available. [Government Code 6253.1].
E. You are required to justify in writing the withholding of any record. [Government Code 6253]. The burden of establishing an exemption is on the public agency. [Vallejos v. California Highway Patrol, 89 CA3d 781, 787 (1979)].
F. The Public Records Act does not limit access to a public record based upon the purpose for which the record is being requested, if the record is otherwise subject to disclosure. [Government Code 6257.5].
G. Agencies are not permitted to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial. [Government Code 6253(d)].
H. If a reasonably segregable portion of a record is exempt by law from production, that portion shall be deleted and the balance of the record shall be provided for inspection. [Government Code 6253(a)].
I. The legislative policy behind the Public Records Act favors disclosure. [Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley, 76 CA3d 931, 941 (1977)].
J. Any authorized fees will be paid to you on delivery, pursuant to an itemized invoice.
Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel
May 4, 2006 Public Records Act Response/Refusal
From: "Modell, Linda"
To: Rose Welsh
Cc: "County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard"
"Gallegos, Paul"
"Keat, Wesley"
Ms. Welsh - The documents you have requested are available for you to pick up at the District Attorney's Office. There is a total of 1,454 pages @.25/pg totalling $363.50. Please make your check payable to the Humboldt County District Attorney - General Fund.
The records do not contain documents from the Spousal Abuse Prosection Program or the Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program. These documents are the subject of pending litigation and per advice of County Counsel and Government Code section 6254(b) we are not able to disclose at this time. We will be happy to provide them once the lawsuit has resolved. Please let us know if you wish them to be provided at that time.
Two programs that the District Attorney is not the grantee of, and therefore we do not have complete information on, can be requested from the agencies that administer them. They are the Marijuana Suppression Program administered by the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office and the NC3TF administered by the Marin County District Attorney's Office.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rose Welsh
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:35 AM
To: District Attorney
Cc: County Administrator Office; Falor, Tammy
Subject: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
April 3, 2006
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE
Please provide me with the following records in your possession:
REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:
Please provide the following records in your possession:
Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:
1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds
2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
A. This is a request made under the California Public Records Act. [Government Code 6250-6277].
B. By law you have 10 calendar days in which to respond to this request. [Government Code 6253(c)].
C. The Public Records Act mandates that public records be open to inspection and that every person has a right to inspect any public record unless the record is specifically exempt from disclosure. Unless exempt, upon a request for a copy of records that "reasonably describes an identifiable record or records" you are required to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering costs of duplication. [Government Code 6253].
D. In the event that there is any uncertainty as to the identity of any record sought, you are affirmatively required to assist the requesting party in better defining the request so that the records can be located and made available. [Government Code 6253.1].
E. You are required to justify in writing the withholding of any record. [Government Code 6253]. The burden of establishing an exemption is on the public agency. [Vallejos v. California Highway Patrol, 89 CA3d 781, 787 (1979)].
F. The Public Records Act does not limit access to a public record based upon the purpose for which the record is being requested, if the record is otherwise subject to disclosure. [Government Code 6257.5].
G. Agencies are not permitted to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial. [Government Code 6253(d)].
H. If a reasonably segregable portion of a record is exempt by law from production, that portion shall be deleted and the balance of the record shall be provided for inspection. [Government Code 6253(a)].
I. The legislative policy behind the Public Records Act favors disclosure. [Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley, 76 CA3d 931, 941 (1977)].
J. Any authorized fees will be paid to you on delivery, pursuant to an itemized invoice.
Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel
To: Rose Welsh
Cc: "County Administrator Office"
"Falor, Tammy"
"Hendry, Richard"
"Gallegos, Paul"
"Keat, Wesley"
Ms. Welsh - The documents you have requested are available for you to pick up at the District Attorney's Office. There is a total of 1,454 pages @.25/pg totalling $363.50. Please make your check payable to the Humboldt County District Attorney - General Fund.
The records do not contain documents from the Spousal Abuse Prosection Program or the Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program. These documents are the subject of pending litigation and per advice of County Counsel and Government Code section 6254(b) we are not able to disclose at this time. We will be happy to provide them once the lawsuit has resolved. Please let us know if you wish them to be provided at that time.
Two programs that the District Attorney is not the grantee of, and therefore we do not have complete information on, can be requested from the agencies that administer them. They are the Marijuana Suppression Program administered by the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office and the NC3TF administered by the Marin County District Attorney's Office.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rose Welsh
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:35 AM
To: District Attorney
Cc: County Administrator Office; Falor, Tammy
Subject: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
April 3, 2006
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE
Please provide me with the following records in your possession:
REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:
Please provide the following records in your possession:
Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:
1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds
2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
A. This is a request made under the California Public Records Act. [Government Code 6250-6277].
B. By law you have 10 calendar days in which to respond to this request. [Government Code 6253(c)].
C. The Public Records Act mandates that public records be open to inspection and that every person has a right to inspect any public record unless the record is specifically exempt from disclosure. Unless exempt, upon a request for a copy of records that "reasonably describes an identifiable record or records" you are required to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering costs of duplication. [Government Code 6253].
D. In the event that there is any uncertainty as to the identity of any record sought, you are affirmatively required to assist the requesting party in better defining the request so that the records can be located and made available. [Government Code 6253.1].
E. You are required to justify in writing the withholding of any record. [Government Code 6253]. The burden of establishing an exemption is on the public agency. [Vallejos v. California Highway Patrol, 89 CA3d 781, 787 (1979)].
F. The Public Records Act does not limit access to a public record based upon the purpose for which the record is being requested, if the record is otherwise subject to disclosure. [Government Code 6257.5].
G. Agencies are not permitted to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial. [Government Code 6253(d)].
H. If a reasonably segregable portion of a record is exempt by law from production, that portion shall be deleted and the balance of the record shall be provided for inspection. [Government Code 6253(a)].
I. The legislative policy behind the Public Records Act favors disclosure. [Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley, 76 CA3d 931, 941 (1977)].
J. Any authorized fees will be paid to you on delivery, pursuant to an itemized invoice.
Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel
April 14, 2006 Public Records Act response
From: "Modell, Linda"
Cc: "Hendry, Richard"
"County Administrator Office"
"Gallegos, Paul"
"Falor, Tammy"
Due to the volume of records in your request and shortage of staff necessary to comply, we are invoking our right to an additional 14 days in which to respond to your request.
-----Original Message-----
From: District Attorney
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:32 AM
To: Modell, Linda
Subject: FW: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:35 AM
To: District Attorney
Cc: County Administrator Office; Falor, Tammy
Subject: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
April 3, 2006
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE
Please provide me with the following records in your possession:
REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:
Please provide the following records in your possession:
Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:
1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds
2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
A. This is a request made under the California Public Records Act. [Government Code 6250-6277].
B. By law you have 10 calendar days in which to respond to this request. [Government Code 6253(c)].
C. The Public Records Act mandates that public records be open to inspection and that every person has a right to inspect any public record unless the record is specifically exempt from disclosure. Unless exempt, upon a request for a copy of records that "reasonably describes an identifiable record or records" you are required to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering costs of duplication. [Government Code 6253].
D. In the event that there is any uncertainty as to the identity of any record sought, you are affirmatively required to assist the requesting party in better defining the request so that the records can be located and made available. [Government Code 6253.1].
E. You are required to justify in writing the withholding of any record. [Government Code 6253]. The burden of establishing an exemption is on the public agency. [Vallejos v. California Highway Patrol, 89 CA3d 781, 787 (1979)].
F. The Public Records Act does not limit access to a public record based upon the purpose for which the record is being requested, if the record is otherwise subject to disclosure. [Government Code 6257.5].
G. Agencies are not permitted to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial. [Government Code 6253(d)].
H. If a reasonably segregable portion of a record is exempt by law from production, that portion shall be deleted and the balance of the record shall be provided for inspection. [Government Code 6253(a)].
I. The legislative policy behind the Public Records Act favors disclosure. [Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley, 76 CA3d 931, 941 (1977)].
J. Any authorized fees will be paid to you on delivery, pursuant to an itemized invoice.
Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel
Cc: "Hendry, Richard"
"County Administrator Office"
"Gallegos, Paul"
"Falor, Tammy"
Due to the volume of records in your request and shortage of staff necessary to comply, we are invoking our right to an additional 14 days in which to respond to your request.
-----Original Message-----
From: District Attorney
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:32 AM
To: Modell, Linda
Subject: FW: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:35 AM
To: District Attorney
Cc: County Administrator Office; Falor, Tammy
Subject: PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST re GRANTS
April 3, 2006
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE
Please provide me with the following records in your possession:
REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:
Please provide the following records in your possession:
Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:
1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds
2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
A. This is a request made under the California Public Records Act. [Government Code 6250-6277].
B. By law you have 10 calendar days in which to respond to this request. [Government Code 6253(c)].
C. The Public Records Act mandates that public records be open to inspection and that every person has a right to inspect any public record unless the record is specifically exempt from disclosure. Unless exempt, upon a request for a copy of records that "reasonably describes an identifiable record or records" you are required to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering costs of duplication. [Government Code 6253].
D. In the event that there is any uncertainty as to the identity of any record sought, you are affirmatively required to assist the requesting party in better defining the request so that the records can be located and made available. [Government Code 6253.1].
E. You are required to justify in writing the withholding of any record. [Government Code 6253]. The burden of establishing an exemption is on the public agency. [Vallejos v. California Highway Patrol, 89 CA3d 781, 787 (1979)].
F. The Public Records Act does not limit access to a public record based upon the purpose for which the record is being requested, if the record is otherwise subject to disclosure. [Government Code 6257.5].
G. Agencies are not permitted to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial. [Government Code 6253(d)].
H. If a reasonably segregable portion of a record is exempt by law from production, that portion shall be deleted and the balance of the record shall be provided for inspection. [Government Code 6253(a)].
I. The legislative policy behind the Public Records Act favors disclosure. [Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley, 76 CA3d 931, 941 (1977)].
J. Any authorized fees will be paid to you on delivery, pursuant to an itemized invoice.
Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel
April 3, 2006 Public Records Act Request re: Grants
April 3, 2006
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE
Please provide me with the following records in your possession:
REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:
Please provide the following records in your possession:
Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:
1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds
2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
A. This is a request made under the California Public Records Act. [Government Code 6250-6277].
B. By law you have 10 calendar days in which to respond to this request. [Government Code 6253(c)].
C. The Public Records Act mandates that public records be open to inspection and that every person has a right to inspect any public record unless the record is specifically exempt from disclosure. Unless exempt, upon a request for a copy of records that "reasonably describes an identifiable record or records" you are required to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering costs of duplication. [Government Code 6253].
D. In the event that there is any uncertainty as to the identity of any record sought, you are affirmatively required to assist the requesting party in better defining the request so that the records can be located and made available. [Government Code 6253.1].
E. You are required to justify in writing the withholding of any record. [Government Code 6253]. The burden of establishing an exemption is on the public agency. [Vallejos v. California Highway Patrol, 89 CA3d 781, 787 (1979)].
F. The Public Records Act does not limit access to a public record based upon the purpose for which the record is being requested, if the record is otherwise subject to disclosure. [Government Code 6257.5].
G. Agencies are not permitted to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial. [Government Code 6253(d)].
H. If a reasonably segregable portion of a record is exempt by law from production, that portion shall be deleted and the balance of the record shall be provided for inspection. [Government Code 6253(a)].
I. The legislative policy behind the Public Records Act favors disclosure. [Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley, 76 CA3d 931, 941 (1977)].
J. Any authorized fees will be paid to you on delivery, pursuant to an itemized invoice.
Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel
To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
PUBLIC RECORD ACT REQUEST - TIME SENSITIVE
Please provide me with the following records in your possession:
REGARDING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE D.A.'s OFFICE:
Please provide the following records in your possession:
Copies of all records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, including but not limited to:
1.) The records regarding all grants in the areas of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and the breakdown of how those funds were ALLOCATED AND SPENT including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each grant for each of the named years
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
e.) the TOTAL BREAKDOWN of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity that received the funds
2.) The records regarding ALL GRANTS received by the District Attorney's Office in the areas of CHILD ABUSE for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and the BREAKDOWN of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:
a.) the TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED for each individual grant for each of the named years,
b.) the CONDITIONS upon which each grant was approved to be spent
c.) the NAMES of each of the district attorney's office employees that were paid using money from these grants, in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full by these grants
d.) the amount ACTUALLY SPENT on each employee
A. This is a request made under the California Public Records Act. [Government Code 6250-6277].
B. By law you have 10 calendar days in which to respond to this request. [Government Code 6253(c)].
C. The Public Records Act mandates that public records be open to inspection and that every person has a right to inspect any public record unless the record is specifically exempt from disclosure. Unless exempt, upon a request for a copy of records that "reasonably describes an identifiable record or records" you are required to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering costs of duplication. [Government Code 6253].
D. In the event that there is any uncertainty as to the identity of any record sought, you are affirmatively required to assist the requesting party in better defining the request so that the records can be located and made available. [Government Code 6253.1].
E. You are required to justify in writing the withholding of any record. [Government Code 6253]. The burden of establishing an exemption is on the public agency. [Vallejos v. California Highway Patrol, 89 CA3d 781, 787 (1979)].
F. The Public Records Act does not limit access to a public record based upon the purpose for which the record is being requested, if the record is otherwise subject to disclosure. [Government Code 6257.5].
G. Agencies are not permitted to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial. [Government Code 6253(d)].
H. If a reasonably segregable portion of a record is exempt by law from production, that portion shall be deleted and the balance of the record shall be provided for inspection. [Government Code 6253(a)].
I. The legislative policy behind the Public Records Act favors disclosure. [Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley, 76 CA3d 931, 941 (1977)].
J. Any authorized fees will be paid to you on delivery, pursuant to an itemized invoice.
Rosemarie Welsh
CC:
Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Tamara Falor, County Counsel
On PRA Req re: Domestic Violence Grant (5/o6)
DA's slow response on information request criticized by Dikeman volunteer
by Glenn Franco Simmons, 5/9/2006
A Worth Dikeman campaign volunteer said a dispute she had over the release of District Attorney’s Office records has been resolved, but not before she felt the DA’s Office and county counsel used delay tactics in the release of that public information.
District Attorney Paul Gallegos told The Eureka Reporter that all information requested by Welsh was submitted by his office to the County Counsel’s Office, which houses the county’s legal team. Gallegos said that office was the decision-maker as to whether the requested information could be released to the public.
“We (the DA’s Office) had no concern about releasing (the information),” Gallegos said. “When we got the request, we talked to county counsel, like we would do for anybody. County counsel gave us some advice.”
When asked if this was the usual process for responding to such a request, Gallegos said, “Absolutely.”
Welsh doesn’t buy Gallegos’ answer. In fact, she said it was The Eureka Reporter’s e-mails to county officials requesting information about her request that prompted the release of all the information.
Gallegos said that Welsh is incorrect.
Welsh has requested information relating to government grants the DA’s Office has received. Welsh said she is attempting to determine what is grant-funded in the department and what isn’t, so she can determine whether Gallegos is properly disbursing the grants’ resources.
Gallegos said he is confident that he has done a good job with disbursing the grants and allocating resources mandated by the grants.
“With grants, if there are issues associated with them, I need to make sure that I’ve done my job,” he said.
At the same time, he realizes that it’s election time and that any decision he has made will be analyzed in what is becoming a heated political campaign, such as the one he currently is involved in.
According to information presented by Welsh to The Eureka Reporter, she requested records of grants in the categories of domestic violence “and the breakdown of how those funds were allocated and spent including, but not limited to:
+ “The total amount received for each grant for each of the named years.
+ “The conditions upon which each grant was approved to be spent.
+ “The names of each of the District Attorney’s Office employees who were paid using money from these grants; in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full, by these grants.
+ “The amount actually spent on each employee.
+ “The total breakdown of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity who received the funds.”
Welsh also requested all child abuse grant records received by the DA’s Office for the period of 2002-2005. Again, she also requested “the breakdown of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:
+ “The total amount received for each individual grant for each of the named years.
+ “The conditions upon which each grant was approved to be spent.
+ “The names of each of the District Attorney’s Office employees who were paid using money from these grants; in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full, by these grants.
+ “The amount actually spent by each employee.”
Welsh, who made her request a formal one by invoking a California Public Records Act (www.thefirstamendment.org/publicrecordsact.pdf) request of the DA’s Office, said the county initially balked at complying fully with her request. The reason? The DA’s Office said pending litigation was the reason for the non-release of some of the documents requested by Rose, so those records were going to initially be withheld from Welsh.
DA’s Office employee Linda Modell wrote to Welsh, saying the 1,454 pages requested by Welsh would cost $363.50.“The records do not contain documents from the Spousal Abuse Prosecution Program or the Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program,” Modell said. “These documents are the subject of pending litigation and per advice of County Counsel and Government Code Section 6254(b), we are not able to disclose at this time.”
Welsh also asked for information about how the grants have been spent on personnel — benefits and salary.
She also requested information about former Assistant District Attorney Tim Stoen.
Per those requests, the county sent her the following from Personnel Director Rick Haeg in an e-mail:
“I have asked our county payroll department to review your request for records. They have advised me that no totals for all benefits are readily available. The information would have to be researched and compiled per benefit item. Because the Public Records Act … does not require that a responding agency create a record to meet the specifications of the request when no such record presently exists, we are unable to comply with your request.”
Welsh fired back an e-mail that stated she was also seeking the amount the county paid to employ the controversial Stoen: “… Unless you (Haeg) are telling me that all benefits associated with his position were included in his salary, the cost of benefits is in addition to his salary. Benefits will normally follow some formula — and I find it incomprehensible that the county does not have this information readily available for all employees.
“In order to speak accurately about the cost of his employment, I need accurate and complete information. That is the reason I filed this Public Records Act request in the first place.”
Welsh was prepared to sue the DA’s Office for not complying with the state’s Public Records Act, which allows for certain government information to be turned over to the public and/or media when such information is requested.
The county’s response to The Eureka Reporter came in the form of an e-mail from Deputy County Counsel Richard Hendry, who stated that Welsh ”requested information on all grants received by the District Attorney’s Office for the years 2002 through 2005. That information was made available to her, except for a grant involving the Spousal Abuse Prosecution Program, which was initially thought to be exempt under the ‘pending litigation’ exception.
“Upon further review by this office,” Hendry said, “it was determined that the material could indeed be released. Ms. Welsh has been notified that all the requested information is being disclosed. …”
Welsh picked up the material on Tuesday.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
by Glenn Franco Simmons, 5/9/2006
A Worth Dikeman campaign volunteer said a dispute she had over the release of District Attorney’s Office records has been resolved, but not before she felt the DA’s Office and county counsel used delay tactics in the release of that public information.
District Attorney Paul Gallegos told The Eureka Reporter that all information requested by Welsh was submitted by his office to the County Counsel’s Office, which houses the county’s legal team. Gallegos said that office was the decision-maker as to whether the requested information could be released to the public.
“We (the DA’s Office) had no concern about releasing (the information),” Gallegos said. “When we got the request, we talked to county counsel, like we would do for anybody. County counsel gave us some advice.”
When asked if this was the usual process for responding to such a request, Gallegos said, “Absolutely.”
Welsh doesn’t buy Gallegos’ answer. In fact, she said it was The Eureka Reporter’s e-mails to county officials requesting information about her request that prompted the release of all the information.
Gallegos said that Welsh is incorrect.
Welsh has requested information relating to government grants the DA’s Office has received. Welsh said she is attempting to determine what is grant-funded in the department and what isn’t, so she can determine whether Gallegos is properly disbursing the grants’ resources.
Gallegos said he is confident that he has done a good job with disbursing the grants and allocating resources mandated by the grants.
“With grants, if there are issues associated with them, I need to make sure that I’ve done my job,” he said.
At the same time, he realizes that it’s election time and that any decision he has made will be analyzed in what is becoming a heated political campaign, such as the one he currently is involved in.
According to information presented by Welsh to The Eureka Reporter, she requested records of grants in the categories of domestic violence “and the breakdown of how those funds were allocated and spent including, but not limited to:
+ “The total amount received for each grant for each of the named years.
+ “The conditions upon which each grant was approved to be spent.
+ “The names of each of the District Attorney’s Office employees who were paid using money from these grants; in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full, by these grants.
+ “The amount actually spent on each employee.
+ “The total breakdown of how each grant was actually spent and the name of the source, person or entity who received the funds.”
Welsh also requested all child abuse grant records received by the DA’s Office for the period of 2002-2005. Again, she also requested “the breakdown of how those funds were spent, including but not limited to:
+ “The total amount received for each individual grant for each of the named years.
+ “The conditions upon which each grant was approved to be spent.
+ “The names of each of the District Attorney’s Office employees who were paid using money from these grants; in other words, which positions were funded, in part or in full, by these grants.
+ “The amount actually spent by each employee.”
Welsh, who made her request a formal one by invoking a California Public Records Act (www.thefirstamendment.org/publicrecordsact.pdf) request of the DA’s Office, said the county initially balked at complying fully with her request. The reason? The DA’s Office said pending litigation was the reason for the non-release of some of the documents requested by Rose, so those records were going to initially be withheld from Welsh.
DA’s Office employee Linda Modell wrote to Welsh, saying the 1,454 pages requested by Welsh would cost $363.50.“The records do not contain documents from the Spousal Abuse Prosecution Program or the Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program,” Modell said. “These documents are the subject of pending litigation and per advice of County Counsel and Government Code Section 6254(b), we are not able to disclose at this time.”
Welsh also asked for information about how the grants have been spent on personnel — benefits and salary.
She also requested information about former Assistant District Attorney Tim Stoen.
Per those requests, the county sent her the following from Personnel Director Rick Haeg in an e-mail:
“I have asked our county payroll department to review your request for records. They have advised me that no totals for all benefits are readily available. The information would have to be researched and compiled per benefit item. Because the Public Records Act … does not require that a responding agency create a record to meet the specifications of the request when no such record presently exists, we are unable to comply with your request.”
Welsh fired back an e-mail that stated she was also seeking the amount the county paid to employ the controversial Stoen: “… Unless you (Haeg) are telling me that all benefits associated with his position were included in his salary, the cost of benefits is in addition to his salary. Benefits will normally follow some formula — and I find it incomprehensible that the county does not have this information readily available for all employees.
“In order to speak accurately about the cost of his employment, I need accurate and complete information. That is the reason I filed this Public Records Act request in the first place.”
Welsh was prepared to sue the DA’s Office for not complying with the state’s Public Records Act, which allows for certain government information to be turned over to the public and/or media when such information is requested.
The county’s response to The Eureka Reporter came in the form of an e-mail from Deputy County Counsel Richard Hendry, who stated that Welsh ”requested information on all grants received by the District Attorney’s Office for the years 2002 through 2005. That information was made available to her, except for a grant involving the Spousal Abuse Prosecution Program, which was initially thought to be exempt under the ‘pending litigation’ exception.
“Upon further review by this office,” Hendry said, “it was determined that the material could indeed be released. Ms. Welsh has been notified that all the requested information is being disclosed. …”
Welsh picked up the material on Tuesday.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
12.30.2006
Gallegos "loses" Nandor Vadas
In this article about budget cuts and layoffs, Gallegos claims that he let Nandor Vadas go because he LOST the Domestic Violence Grant. Earlier he claimed he fired Gloria Albin-Sheets because he lost the Domestic Violence Grant. And Gloria was named on the Grant as THE Vertical Prosecutor for DV, as was Nandor Vadas in her wake. But the DA's Office is still receiving the Grant, and several names have been put on the application claiming they were the Vertical Prosecutor, in order to appear to be complying with the requirements of the Grant.
It's fair to say that there has been no Vertical Prosecution in the DA's Office since Nandor left.
But the Grant has not been lost.
***
Feeling the pinch
14 county workers lose jobs as supes pass 2004-05 budget
by HANK SIMS
Fourteen county employees will lose their jobs, a wide variety of services to the public will be scaled back and the salaries of many public servants will be cut in the upcoming fiscal year under the budget passed unanimously by the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.
In addition, the county will spend nearly its entire savings nearly $2.4 million and will leave more than 200 vacant positions unfilled in order to keep the county afloat during the statewide budget crisis.
"These are essential positions that are going away, and services are going to be less for all of us," said Supervisor Jimmy Smith.
The cuts affect nearly every county department, but certain high-profile services such as those provided by the Sheriff's Office, the county library and the Public Works Department are particularly hard hit.
The Sheriff's Office will lay off eight people, including one sergeant, an evidence technician and four secretaries. In addition, the office will have to leave seven deputy and two investigator positions unfilled, and will close its main office in Eureka to walk-in business on Fridays.
The county library will reduce its open hours at each of its branches by between 10 and 20 percent and will close down entirely for one week every three months. The Public Works Department will hold off on much of its standard upkeep work on county roads, focusing its effort only on the county's "critical routes."
The District Attorney's Office laid off a senior prosecutor, Nandor Vadas, last month because a domestic violence grant ran out, DA Paul Gallegos said. Vadas got a job with the federal magistrate's office, Gallegos said.
Other departments have devised different strategies for coping with the loss of funding. Employees of several including the Assessor's Office, the County Administrative Office and the Board of Supervisors itself have accepted voluntary, across-the-board pay cuts of 5 to 10 percent. District Attorney Paul Gallegos and Assistant DA Tim Stoen each took a 10 percent cut.
In a report to the board, County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus laid out the causes of the budget crisis. The cost of providing health insurance to county employees is expected to increase by 10 percent in the upcoming year, and an increased share of payments into the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) will cost around $2.3 million.
In addition, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed state budget involves taking some $2.5 million in property taxes from the county as part of a maneuver to balance the state's budget. Nickolaus told the board that Schwarzenegger was in the process of revising the proposal, which may result in the tax money being returned to the county.
After several weeks of special sessions to allow for input from heads of county departments and members of the public, the board was able to finalize the budget relatively quickly on Tuesday. Supervisors asked for only one change from Nickolaus' final recommendations to find $10,000 to support the Youth Service Bureau's teen shelter programs for at-risk youth. The $10,000 would keep the programs alive while the bureau pursues a $100,000 federal grant.
Supervisor Bonnie Neely, who has been working with the bureau and the county's Department of Health and Human Services to find other sources of funding for the programs, spoke in favor of the expenditure.
"I think it would be a mistake to lose $100,000 coming into the county because we didn't put forward the $10,000," she said.
Because of a legal technicality the board could not authorize the $10,000 grant at Tuesday's meeting, but a "straw vote" showed unanimous support for the proposal.
Supervisor Jill Geist thanked managers of the county's various departments for leading the way. Earlier in the year, each department was asked to provide a statement showing how it would cut 20 percent from its budget. Those statements formed the basis of the total countywide budget adopted on Tuesday.
"The departments have worked phenomenally to bring back budgets that they can work under and still provide basic services to the community," she said.
For many, the fact that only 14 employees had to be laid off out of a current workforce total of more than 1,650 was a tribute to the county's fiscal responsibility. The county instituted a hiring freeze more than two years ago, with the result that when the crisis hit, empty positions could be cut instead of actual employees.
After the meeting, Public Works Director Allen Campbell said that this approach led to a more painless downsizing than otherwise would have been the case.
"We quit hiring people two years ago, unless it was absolutely necessary," he said. "Through attrition, we're just kind of going down with the budget."
It's fair to say that there has been no Vertical Prosecution in the DA's Office since Nandor left.
But the Grant has not been lost.
***
Feeling the pinch
14 county workers lose jobs as supes pass 2004-05 budget
by HANK SIMS
Fourteen county employees will lose their jobs, a wide variety of services to the public will be scaled back and the salaries of many public servants will be cut in the upcoming fiscal year under the budget passed unanimously by the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.
In addition, the county will spend nearly its entire savings nearly $2.4 million and will leave more than 200 vacant positions unfilled in order to keep the county afloat during the statewide budget crisis.
"These are essential positions that are going away, and services are going to be less for all of us," said Supervisor Jimmy Smith.
The cuts affect nearly every county department, but certain high-profile services such as those provided by the Sheriff's Office, the county library and the Public Works Department are particularly hard hit.
The Sheriff's Office will lay off eight people, including one sergeant, an evidence technician and four secretaries. In addition, the office will have to leave seven deputy and two investigator positions unfilled, and will close its main office in Eureka to walk-in business on Fridays.
The county library will reduce its open hours at each of its branches by between 10 and 20 percent and will close down entirely for one week every three months. The Public Works Department will hold off on much of its standard upkeep work on county roads, focusing its effort only on the county's "critical routes."
The District Attorney's Office laid off a senior prosecutor, Nandor Vadas, last month because a domestic violence grant ran out, DA Paul Gallegos said. Vadas got a job with the federal magistrate's office, Gallegos said.
Other departments have devised different strategies for coping with the loss of funding. Employees of several including the Assessor's Office, the County Administrative Office and the Board of Supervisors itself have accepted voluntary, across-the-board pay cuts of 5 to 10 percent. District Attorney Paul Gallegos and Assistant DA Tim Stoen each took a 10 percent cut.
In a report to the board, County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus laid out the causes of the budget crisis. The cost of providing health insurance to county employees is expected to increase by 10 percent in the upcoming year, and an increased share of payments into the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) will cost around $2.3 million.
In addition, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed state budget involves taking some $2.5 million in property taxes from the county as part of a maneuver to balance the state's budget. Nickolaus told the board that Schwarzenegger was in the process of revising the proposal, which may result in the tax money being returned to the county.
After several weeks of special sessions to allow for input from heads of county departments and members of the public, the board was able to finalize the budget relatively quickly on Tuesday. Supervisors asked for only one change from Nickolaus' final recommendations to find $10,000 to support the Youth Service Bureau's teen shelter programs for at-risk youth. The $10,000 would keep the programs alive while the bureau pursues a $100,000 federal grant.
Supervisor Bonnie Neely, who has been working with the bureau and the county's Department of Health and Human Services to find other sources of funding for the programs, spoke in favor of the expenditure.
"I think it would be a mistake to lose $100,000 coming into the county because we didn't put forward the $10,000," she said.
Because of a legal technicality the board could not authorize the $10,000 grant at Tuesday's meeting, but a "straw vote" showed unanimous support for the proposal.
Supervisor Jill Geist thanked managers of the county's various departments for leading the way. Earlier in the year, each department was asked to provide a statement showing how it would cut 20 percent from its budget. Those statements formed the basis of the total countywide budget adopted on Tuesday.
"The departments have worked phenomenally to bring back budgets that they can work under and still provide basic services to the community," she said.
For many, the fact that only 14 employees had to be laid off out of a current workforce total of more than 1,650 was a tribute to the county's fiscal responsibility. The county instituted a hiring freeze more than two years ago, with the result that when the crisis hit, empty positions could be cut instead of actual employees.
After the meeting, Public Works Director Allen Campbell said that this approach led to a more painless downsizing than otherwise would have been the case.
"We quit hiring people two years ago, unless it was absolutely necessary," he said. "Through attrition, we're just kind of going down with the budget."
12.07.2006
ER - Domestic Violence gets grant
Domestic Violence gets grant
by Christine Bensen-Messinger, 10/14/2005
Since she began working as the executive director of Humboldt Domestic Violence Services in June, Sharyne Harper has secured approximately $200,000 in grants.
“I’ve been writing them since I got here and so far they’ve all been funded,” she said.
Soon Harper will find out if two more grants she applied for will come through.
One of the most recent grants the program received was $20,000 from the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation.
The foundation was started by Mary Kay Ash in 1996 and focused on researching cancers that affect women. In 2000 it expanded its mission to include prevention of violence against women.
To date, the foundation has donated $13 million to these two causes, according to the foundation’s Web site (www.mkacf.org).
Harper said she is pleased that the foundation approved the shelter’s grant.
“(I’m) excited. I only applied for $15,000 and they gave me $20,000,” Harper said.
David Dunnigan, the foundation’s spokesman, said it was glad to give the shelter the extra money because the foundation “(felt) like it was a worthwhile institution.
“There were several shelters that were in the same situation, (and) we wanted to make every shelter gift equal,” he said. “I’m sure they’ll find a way to spend that extra $5,000.”
The shelter will not have a problem putting the extra money to use, Harper said.
“It will help our children’s program which is always under-funded,” she said.
The shelter is 85 percent grant funded. Approximately 15 percent of the grants come from private sources.
“The major funding comes from the office of emergency services … and the department of health,” Harper said.
The shelter provides confidential emergency services and ongoing support programs for Humboldt County residents who are or have been in abusive relationships and their children.
The shelter also has a 24-hour crisis line that can be reached by phoning (707) 443-6042 or toll-free (866) 668-6543.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
by Christine Bensen-Messinger, 10/14/2005
Since she began working as the executive director of Humboldt Domestic Violence Services in June, Sharyne Harper has secured approximately $200,000 in grants.
“I’ve been writing them since I got here and so far they’ve all been funded,” she said.
Soon Harper will find out if two more grants she applied for will come through.
One of the most recent grants the program received was $20,000 from the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation.
The foundation was started by Mary Kay Ash in 1996 and focused on researching cancers that affect women. In 2000 it expanded its mission to include prevention of violence against women.
To date, the foundation has donated $13 million to these two causes, according to the foundation’s Web site (www.mkacf.org).
Harper said she is pleased that the foundation approved the shelter’s grant.
“(I’m) excited. I only applied for $15,000 and they gave me $20,000,” Harper said.
David Dunnigan, the foundation’s spokesman, said it was glad to give the shelter the extra money because the foundation “(felt) like it was a worthwhile institution.
“There were several shelters that were in the same situation, (and) we wanted to make every shelter gift equal,” he said. “I’m sure they’ll find a way to spend that extra $5,000.”
The shelter will not have a problem putting the extra money to use, Harper said.
“It will help our children’s program which is always under-funded,” she said.
The shelter is 85 percent grant funded. Approximately 15 percent of the grants come from private sources.
“The major funding comes from the office of emergency services … and the department of health,” Harper said.
The shelter provides confidential emergency services and ongoing support programs for Humboldt County residents who are or have been in abusive relationships and their children.
The shelter also has a 24-hour crisis line that can be reached by phoning (707) 443-6042 or toll-free (866) 668-6543.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed
Proposed cuts to victims program delayed
By James Faulk The Times-Standard
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
EUREKA -- District Attorney Paul Gallegos made a rare appearance before the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors Tuesday to explain and clarify a requested move by his office to lay off four positions in an already depleted Victim Witness Program.
The request was made because of a rejected grant application that eliminated funding for a domestic violence portion of the witness program. The decision whether to lay off the four employees was put off until next month to see if some interim funding could be found until the county learns the fate of yet another grant application that could fill in the gap.
The board also voted to send a letter in support of pending state legislation that would help stabilize the funding for such programs.
"In the county of Humboldt, positions have been lost in the Victim Witness Program because of the loss of grant funding," the letter states. "The Victim Witness Program is too important to be reliant on competitive grant funding."
Fifth District Supervisor Jill Geist said the move to eliminate four more positions from the Victim Witness Program comes on the back of cuts made last year.
"We need to hear from you or your representatives as to how we can keep from seeing a systematic erosion of these services," she said. "So what I'm trying to identify is how do we ensure that those services aren't victims themselves of systematic erosion as the result of not having funding?"
Gallegos again proclaimed his office's dedication to the program and outlined steps they have taken to find and preserve the cash for services.
"I have utilized the services of victim witness associations myself so I am in intimately aware of the value they provide to the community and the value they provide to the individual," he said. "There has never been a desire by anyone in our office to eradicate those services."
There was some confusion after last week's meeting over what the cuts would mean to the program. Geist at the time said the cuts would eliminate the program for all "intents and purposes."
Gallegos pointed out that the lost grant was initially intended to help get the domestic violence program off the ground, but was never intended "to be a subsidy for this county."
The responsibility is now on us, he said, to find funding.
"This is a community problem and certainly we will continue to do all that we can to serve the citizens of this community and the victims of this community," he said. "We will continue to look at both county and other resources to provide for these people."
Geist said they all were working toward the same end.
"Quite frankly, we're on the same page here," she said. "We're trying to figure out how to ensure that services are available for those that need them."
She complained about a lack of communication between the District Attorney's Office and others in county government.
"There needs to be closer communication, because we do have resources," she said. "We need to find ways so that communication is a stronger conduit so that we can figure out how we're working together on behalf of the community as a whole."
Gallegos agreed and said he would take suggestions on how to improve communication.
"We will do whatever is necessary -- that we can -- to rectify that situation," he said.
Program Coordinator Joyce Moser said the Victim Witness Program is currently a team of 10 that has been funded by three different grants. The loss of the grant at issue means the program will lose positions that assist with victims of domestic violence.
"We have four advocates going to court giving direct services to survivors of crime," she said. "It will be cut 75 percent."
She has actively been searching for ways to help fund the program.
Virginia Campbell, a domestic violence victim who has used the program, said it has been instrumental in turning her life around.
"They are there for you at every chance," she said. "They help relocate you. They go to court for you. They help you fill out your paper work. They tell you that everything will be OK -- they will hold your hand and their door is always open."
Related:
ER - Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children 5/6/04
Losing the Victim Witness Grant
ER - Board of Supervisors talks over grant denial for program 5/11/2005
NCJ - VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED: 5/12/05
ER - Gallegos says program is safe 5/15/2005
ER - Victim witness program funds sought by county 5/18/2005
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed May 18, 2005
TS - My Word - DA leadership: The 8-step program May 24, 2005
County to fund Victim Witness Program The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
Supes mull grant application 5/14/07
By James Faulk The Times-Standard
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
EUREKA -- District Attorney Paul Gallegos made a rare appearance before the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors Tuesday to explain and clarify a requested move by his office to lay off four positions in an already depleted Victim Witness Program.
The request was made because of a rejected grant application that eliminated funding for a domestic violence portion of the witness program. The decision whether to lay off the four employees was put off until next month to see if some interim funding could be found until the county learns the fate of yet another grant application that could fill in the gap.
The board also voted to send a letter in support of pending state legislation that would help stabilize the funding for such programs.
"In the county of Humboldt, positions have been lost in the Victim Witness Program because of the loss of grant funding," the letter states. "The Victim Witness Program is too important to be reliant on competitive grant funding."
Fifth District Supervisor Jill Geist said the move to eliminate four more positions from the Victim Witness Program comes on the back of cuts made last year.
"We need to hear from you or your representatives as to how we can keep from seeing a systematic erosion of these services," she said. "So what I'm trying to identify is how do we ensure that those services aren't victims themselves of systematic erosion as the result of not having funding?"
Gallegos again proclaimed his office's dedication to the program and outlined steps they have taken to find and preserve the cash for services.
"I have utilized the services of victim witness associations myself so I am in intimately aware of the value they provide to the community and the value they provide to the individual," he said. "There has never been a desire by anyone in our office to eradicate those services."
There was some confusion after last week's meeting over what the cuts would mean to the program. Geist at the time said the cuts would eliminate the program for all "intents and purposes."
Gallegos pointed out that the lost grant was initially intended to help get the domestic violence program off the ground, but was never intended "to be a subsidy for this county."
The responsibility is now on us, he said, to find funding.
"This is a community problem and certainly we will continue to do all that we can to serve the citizens of this community and the victims of this community," he said. "We will continue to look at both county and other resources to provide for these people."
Geist said they all were working toward the same end.
"Quite frankly, we're on the same page here," she said. "We're trying to figure out how to ensure that services are available for those that need them."
She complained about a lack of communication between the District Attorney's Office and others in county government.
"There needs to be closer communication, because we do have resources," she said. "We need to find ways so that communication is a stronger conduit so that we can figure out how we're working together on behalf of the community as a whole."
Gallegos agreed and said he would take suggestions on how to improve communication.
"We will do whatever is necessary -- that we can -- to rectify that situation," he said.
Program Coordinator Joyce Moser said the Victim Witness Program is currently a team of 10 that has been funded by three different grants. The loss of the grant at issue means the program will lose positions that assist with victims of domestic violence.
"We have four advocates going to court giving direct services to survivors of crime," she said. "It will be cut 75 percent."
She has actively been searching for ways to help fund the program.
Virginia Campbell, a domestic violence victim who has used the program, said it has been instrumental in turning her life around.
"They are there for you at every chance," she said. "They help relocate you. They go to court for you. They help you fill out your paper work. They tell you that everything will be OK -- they will hold your hand and their door is always open."
Related:
ER - Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children 5/6/04
Losing the Victim Witness Grant
ER - Board of Supervisors talks over grant denial for program 5/11/2005
NCJ - VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED: 5/12/05
ER - Gallegos says program is safe 5/15/2005
ER - Victim witness program funds sought by county 5/18/2005
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed May 18, 2005
TS - My Word - DA leadership: The 8-step program May 24, 2005
County to fund Victim Witness Program The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
Supes mull grant application 5/14/07
ER - Gallegos says program is safe
Gallegos says program is safe
5/15/2005
Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos announced in a news release Friday that his office was not proposing to eliminate the Victim Witness Program.
“After years of reductions, we are pleased to hear of both Supervisor Geist’s and Neely’s commitment to funding services necessary for our office to meet its goal of improving the safety and security of the people in our community,” the news release stated.
“We have been, are and always will be 100 percent committed to the Victim Witness Program and the services it provides to the citizens of Humboldt County,” it said.
According to the news release, the program is at risk of losing the grant that pays for it, but the loss would not eliminate all of the services.
It stated that if the positions paid for by the grant were eliminated, the District Attorney Office’s staff would work harder to serve the needs of domestic violence victims.
The matter will be discussed Tuesday at the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors meeting, where the board will decide whether to take any action to “disallocate” the four victims witness program positions.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
Related:
ER - Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children 5/6/04
Losing the Victim Witness Grant
ER - Board of Supervisors talks over grant denial for program 5/11/2005
NCJ - VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED: 5/12/05
ER - Gallegos says program is safe 5/15/2005
ER - Victim witness program funds sought by county 5/18/2005
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed May 18, 2005
TS - My Word - DA leadership: The 8-step program May 24, 2005
County to fund Victim Witness Program The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
Supes mull grant application 5/14/07
5/15/2005
Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos announced in a news release Friday that his office was not proposing to eliminate the Victim Witness Program.
“After years of reductions, we are pleased to hear of both Supervisor Geist’s and Neely’s commitment to funding services necessary for our office to meet its goal of improving the safety and security of the people in our community,” the news release stated.
“We have been, are and always will be 100 percent committed to the Victim Witness Program and the services it provides to the citizens of Humboldt County,” it said.
According to the news release, the program is at risk of losing the grant that pays for it, but the loss would not eliminate all of the services.
It stated that if the positions paid for by the grant were eliminated, the District Attorney Office’s staff would work harder to serve the needs of domestic violence victims.
The matter will be discussed Tuesday at the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors meeting, where the board will decide whether to take any action to “disallocate” the four victims witness program positions.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
Related:
ER - Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children 5/6/04
Losing the Victim Witness Grant
ER - Board of Supervisors talks over grant denial for program 5/11/2005
NCJ - VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED: 5/12/05
ER - Gallegos says program is safe 5/15/2005
ER - Victim witness program funds sought by county 5/18/2005
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed May 18, 2005
TS - My Word - DA leadership: The 8-step program May 24, 2005
County to fund Victim Witness Program The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
Supes mull grant application 5/14/07
ER - Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children
Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children
by Christine Bensen The Eureka Reporter 5/6/04
Child Interview Specialist Laura Todd conducts a mock interview with Deborah Reeves, a mental health professional support representative from child youth and family services.
Imagine being an abused child, now imagine having to tell the story of your abuse to law-enforcement officers and lawyers — over and over again.
Before 1996, abused children in Humboldt County had to tell the same story numerous times, for their statements to be taken, so that a case could be established and possibly prosecuted.
Seeing a definite problem with this procedure Child Abuse Services Team was developed, under the direction of the District Attorney’s Office, to lessen the trauma a young victim has to experience.
“We’re trying to educate the community on what it is we do,” said Paul Gallegos, Humboldt County District Attorney.
Despite the proposed cuts in the upcoming year’s budget, he said the District Attorney’s Office remains committed to the vulnerable members of the community.
“We just want people in the community to know here is this system, it’s designed to help people,” Gallegos said.
CAST is made up of members from the District Attorney’s Office; local law-enforcement agencies; Child Welfare Services; the Department of Health and Human Services Mental Health Division, Child, Youth and Family Services Division, and Public Health Branch; North Coast Rape Crisis Team; Sexual Assault Response Team; the Humboldt County Probation Department; and local tribes.
Fortuna Police Officer Greg Hill, the C.A.S.T. liaison for his department, said there are a number of reasons a police department initiates a child abuse case.
He said it may receive a report from a mandatory reporter — such as a teacher or school employee, counselor, health care professional, social worker, law-enforcement officer or mental health professional. Hill said police also pursue tips received from numerous other people.
Once law enforcement opens a case, the alleged abused child and his/her family go to the CAST office so that the child’s statement can be taken and the family interviewed to.
If the alleged abuser is a member of the family they are not allowed at the CAST office.
To avoid putting a parent or guardian in the situation of being a possible witness for the defense, the interview is done without the parent or guardian of the child present.
Once the alleged abused child and family arrive, the child is brought into a room with a trained interviewer. If at anytime the child needs a break, it is granted.
“Once the interview starts, (a representative from the) Mental Health (Department) brings the family in their office,” said Melissa Arnold, CAST office coordinator.
The interview room is set up with a two-way mirror on the wall where law-enforcement officers, a deputy district attorney and other people involved in the case can hear and view the interview. The interview is also videotaped. Arnold said this is all explained to the child ahead of time.
The interviewer is also fitted with an earpiece so the people behind the glass can submit questions they want answered.
“We cover anything, whatever law enforcement wants to talk to the child about,” Arnold said.
“It helps (us) get the evidence in the first place,” Gallegos said. “It helps us evaluate it. Some of these taped interviews are pretty compelling. It’s pretty powerful.”
Once the interview is over, the family and child talk with mental health representatives. Law-enforcement officers are also available to talk to the family and this is the time the family can get referrals to services, including mental health.
Laura Todd, the child interview specialist for the team, said she has conducted more than 300 interviews in the past six years.
“I love the job, I love the work. It’s a great team to work with,” she said. “Everybody recognizes that this is a great way to get the job done.”
Because the program is set up to interview children between the ages of 3 and 18 years, as well as some developmentally disabled adults, the office is full of toys, art supplies and even a computer stocked with games.
“A lot of kids don’t want to leave when it’s time to go,” Arnold said.
Related:
ER - Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children 5/6/04
Losing the Victim Witness Grant
ER - Board of Supervisors talks over grant denial for program 5/11/2005
NCJ - VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED: 5/12/05
ER - Gallegos says program is safe 5/15/2005
ER - Victim witness program funds sought by county 5/18/2005
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed May 18, 2005
TS - My Word - DA leadership: The 8-step program May 24, 2005
County to fund Victim Witness Program The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
Supes mull grant application 5/14/07
by Christine Bensen The Eureka Reporter 5/6/04
Child Interview Specialist Laura Todd conducts a mock interview with Deborah Reeves, a mental health professional support representative from child youth and family services.
Imagine being an abused child, now imagine having to tell the story of your abuse to law-enforcement officers and lawyers — over and over again.
Before 1996, abused children in Humboldt County had to tell the same story numerous times, for their statements to be taken, so that a case could be established and possibly prosecuted.
Seeing a definite problem with this procedure Child Abuse Services Team was developed, under the direction of the District Attorney’s Office, to lessen the trauma a young victim has to experience.
“We’re trying to educate the community on what it is we do,” said Paul Gallegos, Humboldt County District Attorney.
Despite the proposed cuts in the upcoming year’s budget, he said the District Attorney’s Office remains committed to the vulnerable members of the community.
“We just want people in the community to know here is this system, it’s designed to help people,” Gallegos said.
CAST is made up of members from the District Attorney’s Office; local law-enforcement agencies; Child Welfare Services; the Department of Health and Human Services Mental Health Division, Child, Youth and Family Services Division, and Public Health Branch; North Coast Rape Crisis Team; Sexual Assault Response Team; the Humboldt County Probation Department; and local tribes.
Fortuna Police Officer Greg Hill, the C.A.S.T. liaison for his department, said there are a number of reasons a police department initiates a child abuse case.
He said it may receive a report from a mandatory reporter — such as a teacher or school employee, counselor, health care professional, social worker, law-enforcement officer or mental health professional. Hill said police also pursue tips received from numerous other people.
Once law enforcement opens a case, the alleged abused child and his/her family go to the CAST office so that the child’s statement can be taken and the family interviewed to.
If the alleged abuser is a member of the family they are not allowed at the CAST office.
To avoid putting a parent or guardian in the situation of being a possible witness for the defense, the interview is done without the parent or guardian of the child present.
Once the alleged abused child and family arrive, the child is brought into a room with a trained interviewer. If at anytime the child needs a break, it is granted.
“Once the interview starts, (a representative from the) Mental Health (Department) brings the family in their office,” said Melissa Arnold, CAST office coordinator.
The interview room is set up with a two-way mirror on the wall where law-enforcement officers, a deputy district attorney and other people involved in the case can hear and view the interview. The interview is also videotaped. Arnold said this is all explained to the child ahead of time.
The interviewer is also fitted with an earpiece so the people behind the glass can submit questions they want answered.
“We cover anything, whatever law enforcement wants to talk to the child about,” Arnold said.
“It helps (us) get the evidence in the first place,” Gallegos said. “It helps us evaluate it. Some of these taped interviews are pretty compelling. It’s pretty powerful.”
Once the interview is over, the family and child talk with mental health representatives. Law-enforcement officers are also available to talk to the family and this is the time the family can get referrals to services, including mental health.
Laura Todd, the child interview specialist for the team, said she has conducted more than 300 interviews in the past six years.
“I love the job, I love the work. It’s a great team to work with,” she said. “Everybody recognizes that this is a great way to get the job done.”
Because the program is set up to interview children between the ages of 3 and 18 years, as well as some developmentally disabled adults, the office is full of toys, art supplies and even a computer stocked with games.
“A lot of kids don’t want to leave when it’s time to go,” Arnold said.
Related:
ER - Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children 5/6/04
Losing the Victim Witness Grant
ER - Board of Supervisors talks over grant denial for program 5/11/2005
NCJ - VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED: 5/12/05
ER - Gallegos says program is safe 5/15/2005
ER - Victim witness program funds sought by county 5/18/2005
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed May 18, 2005
TS - My Word - DA leadership: The 8-step program May 24, 2005
County to fund Victim Witness Program The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
Supes mull grant application 5/14/07
NCJ - VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED
VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED:
North Coast Journal 5/12/05
Humboldt County's Victim/Witness Division, a program of the District Attorney's Office, may soon be forced to close its doors due to the loss of a key grant from the Department of Justice. On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors decided to put off until next week a decision on whether or not to lay off four employees and effectively shutter the department, which provides assistance to an estimated 500 victims or witnesses of crimes each year. Deputy DA Wes Keat told the board that his office assumed that since the grant was not renewed, the program would have to be closed and the four employees laid off on July 30, when the grant expires. However, board members hoped that funding for the service might somehow still be arranged. "It's not really the end of the road as far as we're concerned," said Supervisor Bonnie Neely. The program provides legal assistance to crime victims in court and helps people apply for grants from the national Victims of Crime Fund.
Related:
ER - Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children 5/6/04
Losing the Victim Witness Grant
ER - Board of Supervisors talks over grant denial for program 5/11/2005
NCJ - VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED: 5/12/05
ER - Gallegos says program is safe 5/15/2005
ER - Victim witness program funds sought by county 5/18/2005
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed May 18, 2005
TS - My Word - DA leadership: The 8-step program May 24, 2005
County to fund Victim Witness Program The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
Supes mull grant application 5/14/07
North Coast Journal 5/12/05
Humboldt County's Victim/Witness Division, a program of the District Attorney's Office, may soon be forced to close its doors due to the loss of a key grant from the Department of Justice. On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors decided to put off until next week a decision on whether or not to lay off four employees and effectively shutter the department, which provides assistance to an estimated 500 victims or witnesses of crimes each year. Deputy DA Wes Keat told the board that his office assumed that since the grant was not renewed, the program would have to be closed and the four employees laid off on July 30, when the grant expires. However, board members hoped that funding for the service might somehow still be arranged. "It's not really the end of the road as far as we're concerned," said Supervisor Bonnie Neely. The program provides legal assistance to crime victims in court and helps people apply for grants from the national Victims of Crime Fund.
Related:
ER - Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children 5/6/04
Losing the Victim Witness Grant
ER - Board of Supervisors talks over grant denial for program 5/11/2005
NCJ - VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED: 5/12/05
ER - Gallegos says program is safe 5/15/2005
ER - Victim witness program funds sought by county 5/18/2005
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed May 18, 2005
TS - My Word - DA leadership: The 8-step program May 24, 2005
County to fund Victim Witness Program The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
Supes mull grant application 5/14/07
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed
Proposed cuts to victims program delayed
By James Faulk The Times-Standard
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
EUREKA -- District Attorney Paul Gallegos made a rare appearance before the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors Tuesday to explain and clarify a requested move by his office to lay off four positions in an already depleted Victim Witness Program.
The request was made because of a rejected grant application that eliminated funding for a domestic violence portion of the witness program. The decision whether to lay off the four employees was put off until next month to see if some interim funding could be found until the county learns the fate of yet another grant application that could fill in the gap.
The board also voted to send a letter in support of pending state legislation that would help stabilize the funding for such programs.
"In the county of Humboldt, positions have been lost in the Victim Witness Program because of the loss of grant funding," the letter states. "The Victim Witness Program is too important to be reliant on competitive grant funding."
Fifth District Supervisor Jill Geist said the move to eliminate four more positions from the Victim Witness Program comes on the back of cuts made last year.
"We need to hear from you or your representatives as to how we can keep from seeing a systematic erosion of these services," she said. "So what I'm trying to identify is how do we ensure that those services aren't victims themselves of systematic erosion as the result of not having funding?"
Gallegos again proclaimed his office's dedication to the program and outlined steps they have taken to find and preserve the cash for services.
"I have utilized the services of victim witness associations myself so I am in intimately aware of the value they provide to the community and the value they provide to the individual," he said. "There has never been a desire by anyone in our office to eradicate those services."
There was some confusion after last week's meeting over what the cuts would mean to the program. Geist at the time said the cuts would eliminate the program for all "intents and purposes."
Gallegos pointed out that the lost grant was initially intended to help get the domestic violence program off the ground, but was never intended "to be a subsidy for this county."
The responsibility is now on us, he said, to find funding.
"This is a community problem and certainly we will continue to do all that we can to serve the citizens of this community and the victims of this community," he said. "We will continue to look at both county and other resources to provide for these people."
Geist said they all were working toward the same end.
"Quite frankly, we're on the same page here," she said. "We're trying to figure out how to ensure that services are available for those that need them."
She complained about a lack of communication between the District Attorney's Office and others in county government.
"There needs to be closer communication, because we do have resources," she said. "We need to find ways so that communication is a stronger conduit so that we can figure out how we're working together on behalf of the community as a whole."
Gallegos agreed and said he would take suggestions on how to improve communication.
"We will do whatever is necessary -- that we can -- to rectify that situation," he said.
Program Coordinator Joyce Moser said the Victim Witness Program is currently a team of 10 that has been funded by three different grants. The loss of the grant at issue means the program will lose positions that assist with victims of domestic violence.
"We have four advocates going to court giving direct services to survivors of crime," she said. "It will be cut 75 percent."
She has actively been searching for ways to help fund the program.
Virginia Campbell, a domestic violence victim who has used the program, said it has been instrumental in turning her life around.
"They are there for you at every chance," she said. "They help relocate you. They go to court for you. They help you fill out your paper work. They tell you that everything will be OK -- they will hold your hand and their door is always open."
Related:
ER - Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children 5/6/04
Losing the Victim Witness Grant
ER - Board of Supervisors talks over grant denial for program 5/11/2005
NCJ - VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED: 5/12/05
ER - Gallegos says program is safe 5/15/2005
ER - Victim witness program funds sought by county 5/18/2005
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed May 18, 2005
TS - My Word - DA leadership: The 8-step program May 24, 2005
County to fund Victim Witness Program The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
Supes mull grant application 5/14/07
By James Faulk The Times-Standard
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
EUREKA -- District Attorney Paul Gallegos made a rare appearance before the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors Tuesday to explain and clarify a requested move by his office to lay off four positions in an already depleted Victim Witness Program.
The request was made because of a rejected grant application that eliminated funding for a domestic violence portion of the witness program. The decision whether to lay off the four employees was put off until next month to see if some interim funding could be found until the county learns the fate of yet another grant application that could fill in the gap.
The board also voted to send a letter in support of pending state legislation that would help stabilize the funding for such programs.
"In the county of Humboldt, positions have been lost in the Victim Witness Program because of the loss of grant funding," the letter states. "The Victim Witness Program is too important to be reliant on competitive grant funding."
Fifth District Supervisor Jill Geist said the move to eliminate four more positions from the Victim Witness Program comes on the back of cuts made last year.
"We need to hear from you or your representatives as to how we can keep from seeing a systematic erosion of these services," she said. "So what I'm trying to identify is how do we ensure that those services aren't victims themselves of systematic erosion as the result of not having funding?"
Gallegos again proclaimed his office's dedication to the program and outlined steps they have taken to find and preserve the cash for services.
"I have utilized the services of victim witness associations myself so I am in intimately aware of the value they provide to the community and the value they provide to the individual," he said. "There has never been a desire by anyone in our office to eradicate those services."
There was some confusion after last week's meeting over what the cuts would mean to the program. Geist at the time said the cuts would eliminate the program for all "intents and purposes."
Gallegos pointed out that the lost grant was initially intended to help get the domestic violence program off the ground, but was never intended "to be a subsidy for this county."
The responsibility is now on us, he said, to find funding.
"This is a community problem and certainly we will continue to do all that we can to serve the citizens of this community and the victims of this community," he said. "We will continue to look at both county and other resources to provide for these people."
Geist said they all were working toward the same end.
"Quite frankly, we're on the same page here," she said. "We're trying to figure out how to ensure that services are available for those that need them."
She complained about a lack of communication between the District Attorney's Office and others in county government.
"There needs to be closer communication, because we do have resources," she said. "We need to find ways so that communication is a stronger conduit so that we can figure out how we're working together on behalf of the community as a whole."
Gallegos agreed and said he would take suggestions on how to improve communication.
"We will do whatever is necessary -- that we can -- to rectify that situation," he said.
Program Coordinator Joyce Moser said the Victim Witness Program is currently a team of 10 that has been funded by three different grants. The loss of the grant at issue means the program will lose positions that assist with victims of domestic violence.
"We have four advocates going to court giving direct services to survivors of crime," she said. "It will be cut 75 percent."
She has actively been searching for ways to help fund the program.
Virginia Campbell, a domestic violence victim who has used the program, said it has been instrumental in turning her life around.
"They are there for you at every chance," she said. "They help relocate you. They go to court for you. They help you fill out your paper work. They tell you that everything will be OK -- they will hold your hand and their door is always open."
Related:
ER - Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children 5/6/04
Losing the Victim Witness Grant
ER - Board of Supervisors talks over grant denial for program 5/11/2005
NCJ - VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED: 5/12/05
ER - Gallegos says program is safe 5/15/2005
ER - Victim witness program funds sought by county 5/18/2005
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed May 18, 2005
TS - My Word - DA leadership: The 8-step program May 24, 2005
County to fund Victim Witness Program The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
Supes mull grant application 5/14/07
TS My Word - DA leadership: The 8-step program
Article Last Updated: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 6:13:40 AM PST
DA leadership: The 8-step program
The Times-Standard My Word by Allison Jackson
Paul Gallegos has gone out of his way to cultivate his image: The surfing DA, the individualist rebel with no use for bureaucrats, meetings or rules. He seldom attends county department head meetings (North Coast Journal) and appears at board meetings only rarely (Times-Standard). Unfortunately, all too often this cavalier attitude makes for a disastrously ineffectual leader. His latest debacle came to light last week in front of the Board of Supervisors. With a lack of careful attention causing the virtual elimination of his Victim/Witness Unit, it became clear just how much damage Paul Gallegos is doing to the District Attorney's Office.
Back in September of 2004, Gallegos bungled the application for a grant that provided funding for four people in the Victim/Witness Unit in his office. The grant denial letter went on for a page and a half with criticisms about the application's shortcomings. (Rule No. 1: When you apply for a grant, follow the application rules.)
Even though the denial of the grant would lead to the loss of four positions (75 percent of the unit) and a substantial loss of service to county residents, Paul did nothing and told no one for eight months. (Rule No. 2: When you lose money for something that is really important to the public, do all you can do to find a substitute.)
In May of this year, Gallegos authored a short, ambiguous request to the Board of Supervisors asking them to begin the layoff process for four of his positions. He didn't attach the grant denial letter (for obvious reasons) until asked by the county administrative officer for a further explanation as to why the grant was denied. What's more, he asked that the item be put on the "Consent" portion of the board's agenda, meaning that unless a board member took action to pull the item for discussion it would be summarily passed without comment. (Rule No. 3: If you really want to keep important positions, go to the board and ask them for help.)
Supervisor Geist, who clearly does understand the process, stated publicly that she called the DA's office before the board's May 10 meeting to ask about the grant denial and loss of positions. Unable to obtain clear responses to her questions, she said that she was going to pull the item off the consent calendar for discussion. At the May 10 board meeting, it was Wes Keat who appeared, without any answers or explanations to offer. The board expressed a desire to find some type of funding to preserve the positions and avoid the layoffs. They then continued the item a week to make it possible for Gallegos to be present. (Rule No. 4: When your office is told ahead of time that you are going to be asked questions about something you have requested, prepare for the meeting.)
When Gallegos learned that the item had been pulled for discussion, he went into full attack mode. He claimed that the item was just routine and that Geist had pulled it for political reasons. (Rule No. 5: Be aware that consent items are routinely pulled for discussion. It occurs at nearly every board meeting. Rule No. 6: If you ask any government group to take a specific action, be prepared to respond to any questions they might have about your request in a reasonable, tantrum-free manner. Rule No. 7: When you muff a grant application and a board member tries to find you money to cover your mistake and save your positions, that is not an attack.) The following week, when Gallegos did attend the board meeting, he was arrogant and even confrontational when Supervisor Geist told him they were simply trying to find the money necessary to save the unit (Reread Rule No. 7). Further, when asked about the specifics of the Victim/Witness Unit and its sources of funding, he was unable to provide answers to their questions (Reread Rule No. 4). We still don't know what will happen to the Victim/Witness Unit or to the jobs of four valuable county employees. We do know, however, that once the situation was on the table for discussion, something interesting occurred. The board began to generate and discuss possible ways they could help: Contact legislators; lobby for the passage of an existing Assembly bill; and work with other county officials to find replacement money. (Rule No. 8: Don't assume that problems created by your mistakes cannot be solved by others who know more than you do.)
Maybe ignoring the meetings and the rules gives Gallegos a certain cachet in the circles in which he travels. Maybe he thinks that if he responds with defensive petulance, attacking the very people trying to help him, it will distract the rest of us from seeing how poor a leader he is. He's a rebel, all right -- a rebel without a clue.
Allison Jackson, a Humboldt County deputy district attorney for over 10 years specializing in child abuse and sexual assault cases, is now in private practice. She lives in Hydesville.
Related:
ER - Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children 5/6/04
Losing the Victim Witness Grant
ER - Board of Supervisors talks over grant denial for program 5/11/2005
NCJ - VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED: 5/12/05
ER - Gallegos says program is safe 5/15/2005
ER - Victim witness program funds sought by county 5/18/2005
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed May 18, 2005
TS - My Word - DA leadership: The 8-step program May 24, 2005
County to fund Victim Witness Program The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
Supes mull grant application 5/14/07
The opinions expressed in this My Word piece do not necessarily reflect the editorial viewpoint of the Times-Standard.
DA leadership: The 8-step program
The Times-Standard My Word by Allison Jackson
Paul Gallegos has gone out of his way to cultivate his image: The surfing DA, the individualist rebel with no use for bureaucrats, meetings or rules. He seldom attends county department head meetings (North Coast Journal) and appears at board meetings only rarely (Times-Standard). Unfortunately, all too often this cavalier attitude makes for a disastrously ineffectual leader. His latest debacle came to light last week in front of the Board of Supervisors. With a lack of careful attention causing the virtual elimination of his Victim/Witness Unit, it became clear just how much damage Paul Gallegos is doing to the District Attorney's Office.
Back in September of 2004, Gallegos bungled the application for a grant that provided funding for four people in the Victim/Witness Unit in his office. The grant denial letter went on for a page and a half with criticisms about the application's shortcomings. (Rule No. 1: When you apply for a grant, follow the application rules.)
Even though the denial of the grant would lead to the loss of four positions (75 percent of the unit) and a substantial loss of service to county residents, Paul did nothing and told no one for eight months. (Rule No. 2: When you lose money for something that is really important to the public, do all you can do to find a substitute.)
In May of this year, Gallegos authored a short, ambiguous request to the Board of Supervisors asking them to begin the layoff process for four of his positions. He didn't attach the grant denial letter (for obvious reasons) until asked by the county administrative officer for a further explanation as to why the grant was denied. What's more, he asked that the item be put on the "Consent" portion of the board's agenda, meaning that unless a board member took action to pull the item for discussion it would be summarily passed without comment. (Rule No. 3: If you really want to keep important positions, go to the board and ask them for help.)
Supervisor Geist, who clearly does understand the process, stated publicly that she called the DA's office before the board's May 10 meeting to ask about the grant denial and loss of positions. Unable to obtain clear responses to her questions, she said that she was going to pull the item off the consent calendar for discussion. At the May 10 board meeting, it was Wes Keat who appeared, without any answers or explanations to offer. The board expressed a desire to find some type of funding to preserve the positions and avoid the layoffs. They then continued the item a week to make it possible for Gallegos to be present. (Rule No. 4: When your office is told ahead of time that you are going to be asked questions about something you have requested, prepare for the meeting.)
When Gallegos learned that the item had been pulled for discussion, he went into full attack mode. He claimed that the item was just routine and that Geist had pulled it for political reasons. (Rule No. 5: Be aware that consent items are routinely pulled for discussion. It occurs at nearly every board meeting. Rule No. 6: If you ask any government group to take a specific action, be prepared to respond to any questions they might have about your request in a reasonable, tantrum-free manner. Rule No. 7: When you muff a grant application and a board member tries to find you money to cover your mistake and save your positions, that is not an attack.) The following week, when Gallegos did attend the board meeting, he was arrogant and even confrontational when Supervisor Geist told him they were simply trying to find the money necessary to save the unit (Reread Rule No. 7). Further, when asked about the specifics of the Victim/Witness Unit and its sources of funding, he was unable to provide answers to their questions (Reread Rule No. 4). We still don't know what will happen to the Victim/Witness Unit or to the jobs of four valuable county employees. We do know, however, that once the situation was on the table for discussion, something interesting occurred. The board began to generate and discuss possible ways they could help: Contact legislators; lobby for the passage of an existing Assembly bill; and work with other county officials to find replacement money. (Rule No. 8: Don't assume that problems created by your mistakes cannot be solved by others who know more than you do.)
Maybe ignoring the meetings and the rules gives Gallegos a certain cachet in the circles in which he travels. Maybe he thinks that if he responds with defensive petulance, attacking the very people trying to help him, it will distract the rest of us from seeing how poor a leader he is. He's a rebel, all right -- a rebel without a clue.
Allison Jackson, a Humboldt County deputy district attorney for over 10 years specializing in child abuse and sexual assault cases, is now in private practice. She lives in Hydesville.
Related:
ER - Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children 5/6/04
Losing the Victim Witness Grant
ER - Board of Supervisors talks over grant denial for program 5/11/2005
NCJ - VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED: 5/12/05
ER - Gallegos says program is safe 5/15/2005
ER - Victim witness program funds sought by county 5/18/2005
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed May 18, 2005
TS - My Word - DA leadership: The 8-step program May 24, 2005
County to fund Victim Witness Program The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
Supes mull grant application 5/14/07
The opinions expressed in this My Word piece do not necessarily reflect the editorial viewpoint of the Times-Standard.
ER - on Victim Witness grant
Board of Supervisors talks over grant denial for program
by Nathan Rushton, 5/11/2005
A county grant application to the U.S. Department of Justice that provides funding for the District Attorney’s Victims Witness Program has been rejected, which threatens to eliminate the program’s four employees in July.
During its meeting Tuesday, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to postpone for one week any action on an agenda item that requests the elimination of the program coordinator and three victim witness program specialist positions effective July 30 as a result of the funding shortfall.
County staff has recommended that the positions be “disallocated” and that the layoff process begin.
Fifth District Supervisor Jill Geist asked that the item be continued because the county was waiting to hear back from the Department of Justice about a grant application that was resubmitted to the agency in January.
“We are talking about taking a program — which in the moment is intact — and not having any indication of which direction this is going to go, and eliminating the program,” Geist said.
She said during her recent discussions with Department of Justice officials about the resubmitted grant application, she was told there was no way to discern the status of the application until after the review process was completed in July or August, but if it were approved, the money would come shortly after.
Geist said the Victim Witness Program handles approximately 500 cases a year. It provides assistance to crime victims in explaining court processes, going to court with them and keeping them informed of court dates.
“That is significant in terms of its impact,” Geist said.
She said there also might be state mandates that the county is required to meet with regard to victim witnesses.
Fourth District Supervisor Bonnie Neely said the program is necessary.
“We have a quality of life we want to protect in Humboldt County, which means we have a quality justice system,” Neely said. “That system should include services for victims and witnesses of crimes.”
She thought the issue was a grant-funding issue that should be brought up with Rep. Mike Thompson.
Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat, who was present to speak to the supervisors, said information regarding the agenda item hadn’t been gathered for the board meeting because the DA’s office was at a disadvantage dealing with the matter, which he said was routine, but had become controversial.
He told the board that DA’s office would be able to provide more answers to the specific questions the following week, when District Attorney Paul Gallegos, who is out of town this week, is expected to speak to the board on the matter.
Keat said his understanding of the application process was that the grant application rejection letter was “in the nature of a critique, not in the nature of something that could be fixed.”
Included in the grant application rejection letter were several strengths of the application, as well as numerous weaknesses, including the omission of signatures of several agencies covered under the program.
Keat said the principal author of the application was Bill Rodstrom, the coordinator for the Victim Witness Program. Keat said he believes Rodstrom did his best to provide the best grant application possible.
Keat said he wasn’t aware of a second grant application that had been submitted to the Department of Justice in January, or of any major changes in the criteria of the grant application that might have caused it to be rejected.
He said he didn’t want to see the program cut.
“We agree they’re important,” Keat said. “And we agree we don’t want to see them go.”
According to the grant letter, the applications were reviewed by a peer panel of victim advocacy, law enforcement, prosecution and court experts.
According to a letter from the federal agency, there were 147 grant proposals totaling more than $90 million requested. Because only about $41 million was available, the agency wasn’t able to support all the applications.
(Nathan Rushton can be reached at nathan@eurekareporter.com.)
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
Related:
ER - Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children 5/6/04
Losing the Victim Witness Grant
ER - Board of Supervisors talks over grant denial for program 5/11/2005
NCJ - VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED: 5/12/05
ER - Gallegos says program is safe 5/15/2005
ER - Victim witness program funds sought by county 5/18/2005
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed May 18, 2005
TS - My Word - DA leadership: The 8-step program May 24, 2005
County to fund Victim Witness Program The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
Supes mull grant application 5/14/07
by Nathan Rushton, 5/11/2005
A county grant application to the U.S. Department of Justice that provides funding for the District Attorney’s Victims Witness Program has been rejected, which threatens to eliminate the program’s four employees in July.
During its meeting Tuesday, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to postpone for one week any action on an agenda item that requests the elimination of the program coordinator and three victim witness program specialist positions effective July 30 as a result of the funding shortfall.
County staff has recommended that the positions be “disallocated” and that the layoff process begin.
Fifth District Supervisor Jill Geist asked that the item be continued because the county was waiting to hear back from the Department of Justice about a grant application that was resubmitted to the agency in January.
“We are talking about taking a program — which in the moment is intact — and not having any indication of which direction this is going to go, and eliminating the program,” Geist said.
She said during her recent discussions with Department of Justice officials about the resubmitted grant application, she was told there was no way to discern the status of the application until after the review process was completed in July or August, but if it were approved, the money would come shortly after.
Geist said the Victim Witness Program handles approximately 500 cases a year. It provides assistance to crime victims in explaining court processes, going to court with them and keeping them informed of court dates.
“That is significant in terms of its impact,” Geist said.
She said there also might be state mandates that the county is required to meet with regard to victim witnesses.
Fourth District Supervisor Bonnie Neely said the program is necessary.
“We have a quality of life we want to protect in Humboldt County, which means we have a quality justice system,” Neely said. “That system should include services for victims and witnesses of crimes.”
She thought the issue was a grant-funding issue that should be brought up with Rep. Mike Thompson.
Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat, who was present to speak to the supervisors, said information regarding the agenda item hadn’t been gathered for the board meeting because the DA’s office was at a disadvantage dealing with the matter, which he said was routine, but had become controversial.
He told the board that DA’s office would be able to provide more answers to the specific questions the following week, when District Attorney Paul Gallegos, who is out of town this week, is expected to speak to the board on the matter.
Keat said his understanding of the application process was that the grant application rejection letter was “in the nature of a critique, not in the nature of something that could be fixed.”
Included in the grant application rejection letter were several strengths of the application, as well as numerous weaknesses, including the omission of signatures of several agencies covered under the program.
Keat said the principal author of the application was Bill Rodstrom, the coordinator for the Victim Witness Program. Keat said he believes Rodstrom did his best to provide the best grant application possible.
Keat said he wasn’t aware of a second grant application that had been submitted to the Department of Justice in January, or of any major changes in the criteria of the grant application that might have caused it to be rejected.
He said he didn’t want to see the program cut.
“We agree they’re important,” Keat said. “And we agree we don’t want to see them go.”
According to the grant letter, the applications were reviewed by a peer panel of victim advocacy, law enforcement, prosecution and court experts.
According to a letter from the federal agency, there were 147 grant proposals totaling more than $90 million requested. Because only about $41 million was available, the agency wasn’t able to support all the applications.
(Nathan Rushton can be reached at nathan@eurekareporter.com.)
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
Related:
ER - Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children 5/6/04
Losing the Victim Witness Grant
ER - Board of Supervisors talks over grant denial for program 5/11/2005
NCJ - VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED: 5/12/05
ER - Gallegos says program is safe 5/15/2005
ER - Victim witness program funds sought by county 5/18/2005
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed May 18, 2005
TS - My Word - DA leadership: The 8-step program May 24, 2005
County to fund Victim Witness Program The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
Supes mull grant application 5/14/07
ER - Victim witness program funds sought by county
The Eureka Reporter/Nathan Rushton
Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos answers questions from the Board of Supervisors regarding the work of the Victim Witness Program employee positions.
Victim witness program funds sought by county
by Nathan Rushton, 5/18/2005
The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors again Tuesday held over — this time for several weeks — any action on whether to disallocate four district attorney’s Victim Witness Program positions.
Following Tuesday’s discussion, which identified a breakdown in communications between the board members and Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos and his staff, the parties agreed to seek a funding solution for the continuation of the services.
Last week’s agenda item to decide whether to begin the layoff process for the four victim witness positions in July, following a notification of a rejected U.S. Department of Justice grant application, was scheduled to be routinely approved in last week’s consent calendar by the board.
Consent agenda items are usually approved by the board without comment.
The agenda item was pulled for discussion by Fifth District Supervisor Jill Geist, which sparked numerous questions from board members about the exact duties of the positions at risk of being cut, as well as whether a subsequent grant to the Department of Justice, which was filed in January, would be able to fund this year’s program.
The board members unanimously agreed to continue the matter over one week so they could have more information before making any decision.
Last week, a news release from the District Attorney’s Office stated that it had no intention of eliminating the program or walking away from the many people who receive services under the program each year.
At Tuesday’s meeting, Geist recounted the cuts to the District Attorney’s Office staff in the past year, including two positions that were eliminated from the office’s Child Abuse Services Team program in August.
She said with that, the failure to secure the grant funding for four Victim Witness Program positions for the upcoming year, along with another pending grant application for District Attorney’s Office services that is in question of being funded, there was a “systematic erosion of services.”
“You don’t have a very big office, so from a cumulative standpoint there is a trend that is starting to occur to me,” she said.
Humboldt County District Attorney’s Program Coordinator Joyce Moser also addressed the board to clarify the role of the victim witness program and how it is funded.
She said there are 10 people employed in the Victim Witness Program, which is funded through a number of sources, including the California Office of Emergency Services, California State Board of Control and the U.S. Department of Justice. It is the Justice Department grant that is at risk of being cut.
She said it was reported that the Victim Witness Program handles 500 cases each year, but in fact, that number only represents one part of the office’s case load.
She said the Victim Witness Program assists about 3,000 “contacts” each year, not 500 individuals, which she said was reported last week.
“I don’t want to say individuals, because often times we see people six to eight times,” Moser said. “We are in people’s lives for years.”
Moser said she had been looking into other funds to supplement the program, including an Assembly bill, which if passed could nearly double the amount of money that is distributed by the state for victim witness programs.
“I am very sad we lost this grant,” Moser said. “There will be an impact to victims.”
She said the reality of the situation was that one person cannot do the work of four and the office would be relying on outside agencies to take on the added work.
Last week, Geist said she contacted the District Attorney’s Office and was informed by its staff, that, because the county had received funds for 10 years under the Department of Justice grant and because the county couldn’t make any further improvements to the program itself, the grant was being denied.
Geist said none of the information she received from the DA’s office was provided for in the staff report for the matter brought before the board as an agenda item, with the exception of the grant denial letter that included several pages of critiques — most of it about deficiencies.
“There was nothing in that critique which indicated that there was a 10-year cap for funding, that is the reason that I pulled that item off of the agenda” Geist said. “I need to hear from you or your representatives as to how we keep from seeing a systematic erosion of these services.”
She asked if there was a way the county could identify a solution to ensure that those services could be preserved and suggested the board could help distribute and diversify the workload among the county’s departments so the services could be maintained.
Gallegos also said a number of the people in the District Attorney’s Office have been the victims of crime, including himself.
He said because of those personal experiences, they were intimately aware of the value of the program’s services to the community and to individuals.
“First of all, the Victims Witness Program is not going away,” Gallegos said. “It has never been proposed to be eradicated.”
Gallegos said despite the loss of grants in past years, his office has tried to increase the services of victim witness and reach out to the tribal communities, which have been neglected or haven’t received enough services through the county, he said.
Gallegos also mentioned an alternative plan that recommended the funds for the Victim Witness Program be paid out of county’s general fund.
“Until our homes are safe, our streets will not be safe,” Gallegos said. “Our office is absolutely committed to domestic violence and consequences for people who commit domestic violence.”
Gallegos said one of the requirements that the granting agency looks for is whether the county has demonstrated the commitment to sustain the project after the grants have ended.
Gallegos said he and his predecessor in the office, Terry Farmer, have worked for the past 10 years to make the Victim Witness Program self-sustaining.
“(The grant) was not intended to be a subsidy for the county,” Gallegos said. “It was intended to enable this county to build up a structure and framework to facilitate its own rescue.”
In an emotional account of their own experiences with the victim witness services, several women explained to the board how important the program was for them to be able to go through the court process, get back on their feet and to feel respected.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
Related:
ER - Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children 5/6/04
Losing the Victim Witness Grant
ER - Board of Supervisors talks over grant denial for program 5/11/2005
NCJ - VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED: 5/12/05
ER - Gallegos says program is safe 5/15/2005
ER - Victim witness program funds sought by county 5/18/2005
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed May 18, 2005
TS - My Word - DA leadership: The 8-step program May 24, 2005
County to fund Victim Witness Program The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
Supes mull grant application 5/14/07
County to fund Victim Witness Program
County to fund Victim Witness Program
by Nathan Rushton, The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
After several weeks of having their jobs in limbo, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday resolved the fate of several employees in the District Attorney’s Office’s Victim Witness Program — at least for one more year.
A short-term, one-year allocation of $121,410 will be provided from the Health and Human Services budget, which was approved by the supervisors, to fund three of the four Victim Witness Program positions, which have focused on domestic violence.
The victim witness specialist positions were recommended to be disallocated in May following the denial of a U.S. Department of Justice grant last year that has been the source of the funding for part of the DA’s Victim Witness Program for several years.
“Because of the significant health and human services needs that can often be experienced by victims of or witness to criminal activity, the Department of the Health and Human Services is able to provide funding for three full-time Victim Witness Program specialists for one year through the use of discretionary social services funds,” said County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus.
She said using the discretionary funds also has the added advantage of allowing the DA’s Office the additional flexibility in the assignment of cases because the specialists won’t be limited to domestic violence cases.
However, Nickolaus said the Health and Human Services Department couldn’t fund the full-time coordinator position.
“The Victim Witness Program, under the umbrella of the District Attorney’s Office, has been instrumental in reducing the trauma victims and witness often experience in the wake of crime,” Nickolaus said.
In mid-May, a routine consent-calendar agenda item that recommended the layoff of four victim witness positions was pulled for discussion by Supervisor Jill Geist.
Concerned with the future of the program, the supervisors directed staff from the County Administrative and the Health and Human Services offices to work with the DA to seek other sources of funding to maintain the services.
The Victim Witness Program employees provide assistance to crime victims in explaining court processes, going to court with them and keeping them informed of court dates.
Nickolaus, in her report on the issue to the board, said there were two issues the county was facing — the short- and long-term funding for the program.
Nickolaus said that the grant from the Department of Justice was not approved for the fiscal year 2005-2006, although a grant application that was submitted to the federal government for the subsequent fiscal year was still pending.
Nickolaus said a joint solution worked out through the DA’s office, Health and Human Services and the County Administrative offices recommended the county provide a short-term bridge funding for one fiscal year.
She said the one-time fund allocation would allow the DA’s Office the opportunity to seek other funding sources and additional flexibility in managing the Victim Witness Program.
Supervisor John Woolley said it was unfortunate that such a valuable service to the community was dependent on grant funding.
Paula Arrowsmith-Jones, a manager of the North Coast Rape Crisis Team, said the positions are essential to the domestic violence prosecution process.
“They are a vital part of an overall response to violence in our community, not only around domestic-violence issues, but all victims of crime needing support in terms of being able to withstanding the process of prosecution,” Arrowsmith-Jones said.
In other business, the board held a public hearing to receive comments on the In-Home Support Services employees, whose union representatives are undergoing contract negotiations with the county.
The home care workers presented the supervisors approximately 2,000 signed petitions they collected asking for a pay increase and health benefits.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
Related:
ER - Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children 5/6/04
Losing the Victim Witness Grant
ER - Board of Supervisors talks over grant denial for program 5/11/2005
NCJ - VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED: 5/12/05
ER - Gallegos says program is safe 5/15/2005
ER - Victim witness program funds sought by county 5/18/2005
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed May 18, 2005
TS - My Word - DA leadership: The 8-step program May 24, 2005
County to fund Victim Witness Program The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
Supes mull grant application 5/14/07
by Nathan Rushton, The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
After several weeks of having their jobs in limbo, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday resolved the fate of several employees in the District Attorney’s Office’s Victim Witness Program — at least for one more year.
A short-term, one-year allocation of $121,410 will be provided from the Health and Human Services budget, which was approved by the supervisors, to fund three of the four Victim Witness Program positions, which have focused on domestic violence.
The victim witness specialist positions were recommended to be disallocated in May following the denial of a U.S. Department of Justice grant last year that has been the source of the funding for part of the DA’s Victim Witness Program for several years.
“Because of the significant health and human services needs that can often be experienced by victims of or witness to criminal activity, the Department of the Health and Human Services is able to provide funding for three full-time Victim Witness Program specialists for one year through the use of discretionary social services funds,” said County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus.
She said using the discretionary funds also has the added advantage of allowing the DA’s Office the additional flexibility in the assignment of cases because the specialists won’t be limited to domestic violence cases.
However, Nickolaus said the Health and Human Services Department couldn’t fund the full-time coordinator position.
“The Victim Witness Program, under the umbrella of the District Attorney’s Office, has been instrumental in reducing the trauma victims and witness often experience in the wake of crime,” Nickolaus said.
In mid-May, a routine consent-calendar agenda item that recommended the layoff of four victim witness positions was pulled for discussion by Supervisor Jill Geist.
Concerned with the future of the program, the supervisors directed staff from the County Administrative and the Health and Human Services offices to work with the DA to seek other sources of funding to maintain the services.
The Victim Witness Program employees provide assistance to crime victims in explaining court processes, going to court with them and keeping them informed of court dates.
Nickolaus, in her report on the issue to the board, said there were two issues the county was facing — the short- and long-term funding for the program.
Nickolaus said that the grant from the Department of Justice was not approved for the fiscal year 2005-2006, although a grant application that was submitted to the federal government for the subsequent fiscal year was still pending.
Nickolaus said a joint solution worked out through the DA’s office, Health and Human Services and the County Administrative offices recommended the county provide a short-term bridge funding for one fiscal year.
She said the one-time fund allocation would allow the DA’s Office the opportunity to seek other funding sources and additional flexibility in managing the Victim Witness Program.
Supervisor John Woolley said it was unfortunate that such a valuable service to the community was dependent on grant funding.
Paula Arrowsmith-Jones, a manager of the North Coast Rape Crisis Team, said the positions are essential to the domestic violence prosecution process.
“They are a vital part of an overall response to violence in our community, not only around domestic-violence issues, but all victims of crime needing support in terms of being able to withstanding the process of prosecution,” Arrowsmith-Jones said.
In other business, the board held a public hearing to receive comments on the In-Home Support Services employees, whose union representatives are undergoing contract negotiations with the county.
The home care workers presented the supervisors approximately 2,000 signed petitions they collected asking for a pay increase and health benefits.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
Related:
ER - Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children 5/6/04
Losing the Victim Witness Grant
ER - Board of Supervisors talks over grant denial for program 5/11/2005
NCJ - VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED: 5/12/05
ER - Gallegos says program is safe 5/15/2005
ER - Victim witness program funds sought by county 5/18/2005
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed May 18, 2005
TS - My Word - DA leadership: The 8-step program May 24, 2005
County to fund Victim Witness Program The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
Supes mull grant application 5/14/07
ER - Worth Dikeman will give county's children the help they need
Worth Dikeman will give county's children the help they need
by Carole Cahill, 5/30/2006
Dear Editor,
I recently re-read the 2004-2005 grand jury report and was once again shocked at the lack of comprehension and compassion of District Attorney Paul Gallegos regarding the Child Abuse Services Team.
In the report the grand jury found and recommended:
1. That there is a consensus within the CAST originization that a leadership person is needed to coordinate and make decisions about CAST, and
2. That two deputy DAs and a senior legal office assistant be assigned or hired and that CAST cases by the priority case load for the attorneys assigned to CAST.
Mr. Gallegos’ response to the finding and recommendation No. 1 was that he wholly disagrees with the finding. There was no consensus within the CAST organization. He then states that a director position which would authorize a leadership person for CAST has been advocated and was initiated by the DA’s Office. Huh? He then blames the delay in creating this position on the lack of consensus within the CAST organization. If this is so, how could the grand jury state that there is a consensus within the CAST organization, augmented by a recommendation of the National Children’s Alliance? Who speaks the truth?
In his response to the second finding and recommendation of the grand jury that the CAST program should have two deputy district attorneys with CAST cases as their priority and a senior legal office assistant, as was in place when he took office, he said “some” members of CAST identified such a need, but that he wholly disagrees with their opinion and that “the recommendation will not be implemented” because it is “not warranted and is unreasonable,” and “would not benefit the office or improve the quality of service.”
The protection of our smallest and most venerable victims is totally warranted and wholly reasonable. Please go the polls on June 6 and vote for Worth Dikeman, who will make the restoration of the CAST program his No. 1 priority.
Carole Cahill
Arcata
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
by Carole Cahill, 5/30/2006
Dear Editor,
I recently re-read the 2004-2005 grand jury report and was once again shocked at the lack of comprehension and compassion of District Attorney Paul Gallegos regarding the Child Abuse Services Team.
In the report the grand jury found and recommended:
1. That there is a consensus within the CAST originization that a leadership person is needed to coordinate and make decisions about CAST, and
2. That two deputy DAs and a senior legal office assistant be assigned or hired and that CAST cases by the priority case load for the attorneys assigned to CAST.
Mr. Gallegos’ response to the finding and recommendation No. 1 was that he wholly disagrees with the finding. There was no consensus within the CAST organization. He then states that a director position which would authorize a leadership person for CAST has been advocated and was initiated by the DA’s Office. Huh? He then blames the delay in creating this position on the lack of consensus within the CAST organization. If this is so, how could the grand jury state that there is a consensus within the CAST organization, augmented by a recommendation of the National Children’s Alliance? Who speaks the truth?
In his response to the second finding and recommendation of the grand jury that the CAST program should have two deputy district attorneys with CAST cases as their priority and a senior legal office assistant, as was in place when he took office, he said “some” members of CAST identified such a need, but that he wholly disagrees with their opinion and that “the recommendation will not be implemented” because it is “not warranted and is unreasonable,” and “would not benefit the office or improve the quality of service.”
The protection of our smallest and most venerable victims is totally warranted and wholly reasonable. Please go the polls on June 6 and vote for Worth Dikeman, who will make the restoration of the CAST program his No. 1 priority.
Carole Cahill
Arcata
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.