Sunday, October 13, 2013

2013 Vallejo City Council Elections

Halloween, 2013, meet some tragic and terrorizing politicians in Vallejo!
Rozzana Verder-Aliga, destroyer of Vallejo Public schools, finds acceptance with Vallejo's Christian Dominionists [link]

United Democrats of Southern Solano County President, Jonathan Gordon, explains that, as an atheist yet spiritual man, he sees the value in everybody, including those of an opposing and militant ideology who want the Democrat Party to be rid of the influence of men and women like him!

"Disagreement over the endorsement of Anthony Summers -- 10/19/13" video from "IBVALLEJO" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6S1Yjy2ZDw]:


"Who is being "destructive, divisive and an obstructionist? Malgapo, Dew, Verder-Aliga and Summers Denigrate Public Service"
2013-10-14 message from Vallejo City Councilwoman Marti Brown [http://ibvallejo.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1769&Itemid=34]:

When I received my Jump Start Vallejo direct mail this weekend, I was stunned, deeply disappointed and hurt to realize that the powerful Democrats that represent the City of Vallejo and Solano County signed on to the Jump Start Vallejo Political Action Committee (PAC) to denigrate my public service to the citizens of Vallejo. Service that I have offered with honesty and integrity for the past four years. 
Unfortunately, since Malgapo, Dew, Verder-Aliga and Summers are part of the Jump Start Vallejo PAC, I can only assume that they too condone Jump Start's description of Vice-Mayor Stephanie Gomes and myself and also think that we have been "inactive obstructionists" to Vallejo's progress and future success.
In good times and bad, I have been a steadfast supporter of the everyday Vallejoan. I have stood by you and tried to set policy in our collective best interests. I have also asked you to stand with me and the rest of the council to address our most crucial community needs. I've asked you to participate and get involved--at every level of government and through community service--so that, together, we can rebuild our city with mutual respect, collaboration, cooperation and as a collective reflection of everyone who lives here.
Jump Start Vallejo, its slate of candidates and its endorsers have accused Vice-Mayor Stephanie Gomes and myself, two life-long Democrats elected to public office, as having "destructive control over the City of Vallejo" and as being "obstructionists, inactive and divisive." 
I hope you see through these lies. 
Jump Start Vallejo's endorsers include:
* Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla 
* Mayor Osby Davis 
* Solano County Sheriff, Thomas A. Ferrara
* Supervisor Erin Hannigan
* Supervisor Jim Spering 
* Supervisor Skip Thomson
* Supervisor John Vasquez
* Solano County Superintendent of Schools, Jay Speck
* Solano County District Attorney, Donald A. du Bain
* Vallejo City Councilmember, Hermie Sunga
* Vallejo Unified School Boardmember, Hazel Wilson
* Vallejo Unified School Boardmember, Raymond Mommsen
* Vallejo Unified School Boardmember, Rev. Dr. Tony Ubalde
* Solano County Assessor-Recorder, Marc Tonnesen
* Solano County Board of Education Boardmember, Larry Asera
* Former Vallejo City Councilmember, Michael Wilson
* Former Vallejo City Councilmember, Tom Bartee
* Former Vallejo City Councilmember, Cris Villanueva
* United Democrats of Southern Solano County President, Jonathan Gordon
---
Comment from Anonymous:
The officers list for United Democrats, as cited, is outdated. Having said that, and if I were still VP of United Dems, I my votes would be to endorse Liat, Joanne, and Katy. No other candidates even come close to the level    of dedication these candidates have for Vallejo.   I am baffled as to how the current United Dems or the Solano Democratic Central Committee could officially endorse candidates with positions and/or Trojan Horse motives that are not consistent with either the California or national Democratic platforms      "United Democrats of Southern Solano County"? That is a  political club. Clubs are chartered by the Central Committee, but are independent of the Democratic party and are not deemed to be affiliated and are not financially supported by the Democratic Party. I went to the Southern Solano Democratic Club website and there really isn't much info there, but here is a list of their "officers" Jonathon Gordon, Lou Bordisso, Jim Stevenson, Donald Hill, John Lewis. It looks like it is probably a really small group and I can't speak as to what their motives are in getting involved in a   Council race.      If a club fails to support, or tries to cause  the failure of a democrat to be elected, the clubs charter can be revoked. (see S.R.10 of their rules) http://www.solanodems.com/SCDCCBylaws.pdf
---
Does anyone know who on the United Democrats of Southern Solano County voted for the JumpStart Slate? I heard few voted and that two of the pro jump people were Jon Riley and Burky Worel.


"Vallejo May Have to File Bankruptcy Again, Warns Official, Citing 'Public Safety Unions' Holding City Hostage, and 'Buying Elections'; Other U.S. Cities Face Similar Fates"
2013-11-01 message from Vallejo City Councilwoman Marti Brown:
Vallejo, CA--
The City of Vallejo -- which in 2008 became the largest California city to file for bankruptcy -- may face a second bankruptcy soon because public safety unions are buying the upcoming NOV. 5/TUESDAY Vallejo City Council elections with dirty, outside money, charged an outgoing city council member.
"I don't have a conflict. I am not running for office," said Marti Brown. "But, I want to warn our citizens that public safety unions and other Political Action Committees (PACs) are buying the elections of their future employers - city council members. In Vallejo, they've already contributed more than $100,000 to a race that would normally cost $30-40,000 per candidate."
Brown said that this is the story not just in Vallejo, but all over the U.S. where cities are being held hostage by public safety unions as these cities struggle to make ends meet and unsuccessfully fund unsustainable public safety labor contracts. Without a doubt, she added, the country will face more municipal crisis and bankruptcies if these unions continue to flood local elections with special interest PAC monies.
"With the city's current structural deficit, Vallejo may face a second bankruptcy if public safety unions continue to go unchecked and determine the outcome of city council elections. Their PAC funded candidates will be beholden to the special interests that funded them, including putting binding interest arbitration back into the city's charter," Brown said.
"Vallejo's story is every American city story. Too many pressing needs and not enough resources. Too many powerful politicians, political parties, and civic organizations all sleeping together to get ahead and get re-elected while the average citizen and American city lag behind and suffer from a lack of services and programs.
"It's about powerful Democrats and Republicans with lots of money behind them -- public safety unions and corporations -- and very little regard for the 'every day American' trying to make ends meet, paying their rent or mortgage, and getting their children safely to school," added Brown.
Stephanie Gomes, another outgoing Vallejo City Council member, said that when she was running for office in 2005, she was asked by public safety unions if she would stay "bought."
"I was naively shocked then. I'm not shocked anymore. This is what ultimately created Vallejo's financial imbalance," Gomes said.


"Abort the port, abort the port! And beam me up, Scotty!"
2013-10-31 message from Vallejo City Council member Marti Brown:
'Support the Port' candidate, Chris Platzer, would have us all believe that if we just push the "port" button on holodeck 9 of the Starship Enterprise, we'll live happily ever after in this perfect world of 10,000 new jobs, ever-increasing revenue, and no adverse impacts to the city or Vallejo citizens.
Holodeck 9: Where all your 'port district' fantasies come true.

Chris is a smart and articulate candidate. I supported him more than once when he applied for the City's Planning Commission. So, I was really surprised when he came out with this far-from-new idea of developing a port district. After all, we've heard this type of "silver bullet" approach to our economic development woes more than once, but they've always fallen short. 
But one of the most alarming aspects of Chris's campaign is that his one and only campaign contributor, the Mare Island Rail Service (MIRS), is funding his campaign to the tune of $80,000! And, to add insult to injury, MIRS is suing the City of Vallejo. Not exactly a good business partner.
Putting Chris's campaign financing aside for a moment, however, let's take a closer look at some of the extreme challenges with the proposed port district:
* A "port district" is a taxing entity. Who do you think would be taxed with a Mare Island Port District or Authority? Vallejo citizens? Mare Island residents and businesses? Aren't we all taxed enough?
* Port districts/authorities are like "little cities." They don't follow many of the surrounding city's zoning regulations. Once established, they mostly develop their own regulations. With the Mare Island dry docks so close to a residential community and Touro University, I wonder how those groups will feel about unrestricted development and industrial activity. How would the air and water quality of Mare Island and the rest of the city be impacted? Unlike other port districts that frequently face open water, our potential port area is in a strait facing our city and our other pristine waterfront on the "mainland." 
What will our immediate surrounding residential communities look like? The residential communities surrounding the Oakland and Stockton ports, for example, are in pretty bad shape suffering from high crime and poverty. Is that what we want on Mare Island? How would the Mare Island residents and Touro University be impacted by such a Port District? If they're in the "sacrifice zone" of a port district, chances are they won't get much say about the district's future.
Also troubling is the harsh reality that it would take approximately a decade to complete the State's Environmental Impact Report and permitting process. And there's only a 50-50 chance that the results would be favorable and give us the port district that Chris envisions. Do we really want to put all our eggs in that basket and wait for a decade to find out if Chris's "silver bullet" is going to be approved?!
When it comes to economic development, we all want a silver bullet, a home run and a touch down. But truthfully, we're fresh out of all three. And sustainable economic development is incremental, builds on a communities' assets and focuses on existing businesses first - helping them to expand. It's not about sinking all our future economic development eggs in one basket.
Most of us learn at some point in life that we should develop a diverse financial portfolio. Economic development is no different. To ensure the successful financial and economic health of the city, we need a diverse portfolio that builds on the community assets and industries we already have: light manufacturing/industrial, health care, tourism and higher education.
Stop looking for "pie in the sky" answers to good economic development and start looking out our back door, working with and supporting the businesses that are already here, as well as our developers to bring long term, sustained business to Vallejo that advances the things we know we're already good at!
Finally, let's not forget that the City of Vallejo has a "Mare Island Reuse Plan" approved by prior City Councils AND the residents of Vallejo. And that plan does not currently include zoning regulations that would allow for the development of a port. I wonder why? Could it be because Vallejoans already decided that they do not want that type of heavy industry on the island? And, therefore, designed a reuse plan focused on residential, commercial and light industrial/manufacturing development instead? 
I have an idea!
On November 5, vote for candidates who actually do their homework, are not a "one-trick pony," and are not supported by one single financial campaign contributor (who is suing the city) and with no other individual donations.
---
Abort the port! CORRECTION OF INFORMATION -
I have been advised by the General Counsel of Tri-City and Olympia Rail Company that the information I provided in my most recent opinion piece entitled, "Abort the port! And beam me up, Scotty" regarding campaign contributions to Chris Platzer's city council campaign by the Mare Island Rail Service is "blatantly false" and "libelous" (see attached letter) [http://origin.library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102974471298-151/2013.10.29+LT+Marti+Brown.pdf].
This letter is to serve as acknowledgement that I falsely cited Mare Island Rail Service (MIRS) as contributing nearly $80,000 to Chris Platzer's campaign when in fact MIRS has only contributed $300.
It is Mr. Randolph Petersen, President of Mare Island Rail Service, who contributed a total cash and in kind contribution in the amount of $78,000 to Chris Platzer's campaign. You can read the same information and numbers in the Vallejo Times Herald's recent article on campaign financing: "Finance report details spending in final days of Vallejo City Council race" [http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_24392973/finance-report-details-spending-final-days-vallejo-city].

T&O Railroad Company, Inc.
[2579 Stevens Drive PO Box 1700 Richland, Washington, 99354]
Telephone: (509) 371-8313, Ex. 307
Fax: (509) 582-4964
Paul J. Petit General Counsel paulpetit@tcry.com
October 29, 2013
Councilwoman Marti Brown City of Vallejo 555 Santa Clara Street Vallejo, CA 94590
Via Email and by Personal Delivery
Re: “Abort the Port”
Councilwoman Brown: I write this letter on behalf of and as General Counsel for T&O Railroad Company, Inc. (which does business in California as Mare Island Rail Service). On October 28, 2013, your “Abort the Port” pamphlet was published via email and possibly other means to a substantial number of persons in the Vallejo area. That pamphlet criticizes a candidate for City Council and makes the following blatantly false statement: But one of the most alarming aspects of Chris's campaign is that his one and only campaign contributor, the Mare Island Rail Service (MIRS), is funding his campaign to the tune of $80,000! Even a cursory reading of the campaign finance disclosure statements should have informed you that Mare Island Rail Service has made a total contribution to the campaign of this candidate in the form of services in an amount less than $300. Your false statement that Mare Island Rail Service is funding a campaign “to the tune of $80,000” is libelous. My client intends to pursue all legal remedies regarding that libel. You can avoid such action only by publishing a statement advising those to whom you sent a copy of “Abort the Port” that your statement regarding Mare Island Rail Service was and is false. In order to be effective in precluding legal action, that retraction statement acknowledging the falsehood must be published to all persons who received the false “Abort the Port” pamphlet in a format and manner equivalent to the “Abort the Port” publication and published by no later than 5:00 pm Wednesday, October 30, 2013. A copy of that statement must be provided to me at the email address shown on this letterhead.




"Supervisor Hannigan; Attacks without Facts"
2013-11-01 by City of Vallejo Vice-Mayor Stephanie Gomes, posted to "Vallejo Independent Bulletin" [http://ibvallejo.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1792&Itemid=1]:
Note: All opinions expressed are those of the writer and not necessarily those of the Vallejo Independent Bulletin.
---
I'm not quite sure why Solano County SUPERVISOR Erin Hannigan is sniping at and lying about her constituents like a 9th grade school girl sitting at the side of the gym at her first high school party watching the smarter, prettier girls get asked to dance. Poor Erin, she must feel intimidated by the strong, intelligent women she has maligned who are the antithesis of her -- women who don't have to define their value by whether they have had children or not.
Hannigan's letter includes some unfortunate and easily provable lies (how not shocking the Times Herald printed it without checking the facts – even though they required “fact checking” when former Councilmember Joanne Schivley was running for Mayor in 2011).
As my representative at the County, I have some serious concerns about Hannigan's lying -- if she'll lie about people she represents, what else will she lie about? And correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think Marti Brown and I were running for office this year -- so why the election eve cat claws?
To summarize her points, Hannigan asks people to vote for her candidates because it’s important to them that Measure B funds are spent on public safety, improving streets while retaining and attracting jobs to our community. Wow! That's exactly how our current budget spends Measure B funds! Thanks for the compliment, Erin.
She also notes that her candidates care about safe neighborhoods, balanced budgeting and bringing and retaining jobs to Vallejo. Every one of the candidates running for office this year cares about those issues. Every candidate in every election year cares about those issues. Regurgitated campaign platitudes are all she has to offer that make her candidates the best ones for the job?
Oh, and Hannigan talking about balanced budgeting is like getting medical advice from a car salesman. How easily she ignores her own giveaway of Vallejo Police Officers Association (VPOA) raises and 100% City-paid health care while the City was in bankruptcy, resulting in the lay off or elimination of 17 vacant police officer positions! Coincidentally, those positions cost just about the same as our current $5.2 million deficit. And that deficit nearly doubles next year. If Hannigan cared about balanced budgets so much, why did she vote for those permanent VPOA raises in 2009 when a $12 million deficit was staring her in the face?
With that background, let’s correct Hannigan's many erroneous statements:
(1) Katy Miessner supported the approved fiscally responsible Solano 360 plan and is an active member of the Solano County Fair Board. And I was on the Solano 360 committee from its inception (for over four years). Pippin Dew did not work on crafting the Solano 360 vision or advocate for the project until this past year when a run for City Council was in her very near future. I'd hardly call that a "vocal advocate" of the plan.

(2) Hannigan describes Anthony Summers as a "job placement specialist, father and local pastor". Sounds so benign and simple, doesn't it? Summers (along with Dew) begged to bring the Parolee Day Center to Vallejo that Hannigan shoved down Vallejo's throat like a poison pill. Why? Summers works as a PAROLEE job placement specialist in Vallejo. How convenient for him.

(3) Liat Meitzenheimer never spoke on the subject of the recent waterfront office building proposal. So how can Hannigan say she opposed it?
Unlike Summers, who Hannigan says would have sold our precious and unique waterfront property for $1 to build an office building. Office buildings don't need water views. They belong in the downtown. Hopefully, this building will end up there..
That aside, I hope Meitzenheimer did oppose it, like Brown, Miessner, Schively and I. If Hannigan, Summers, Malgapo, Dew and Verder-Aliga had been the "deciders" on last summer’s waterfront office building project, they'd have sold the City's precious and unique waterfront property for $1 just to have another ugly box office building (like the State Farm office) blocking our waterfront access all in the name of "jobs". (And probably another lawsuit because the building would have violated the legally agreed-upon waterfront plan.)
But because Brown and I, along with our colleagues Bob Sampayan and Robert McConnell, made the decision to deny the project and ask staff to assist the developer to find a downtown location for his project, we now have the opportunity to create new jobs AND still preserve our precious waterfront property for public uses. Instead of a “rushed yes” to a poorly conceived development project on our waterfront that ultimately sells the public short, we said “how about looking at our downtown where office buildings really belong.” As a result, everyone is winning with a development project that fits its location, benefits local business and creates jobs.
Hannigan and her candidates Malgapo, Summers, Dew and Verder-Aliga, are a part of the "anything is better than nothing" campaign. They will "give away the farm” to anyone and at any price. It doesn’t matter the offer price, the appropriateness of its location or the benefits to the community. Brown, Meitzenheimer, Miessner, Schively and I -- we believe Vallejo deserves better. And like last summer’s proposed waterfront office building, we proved that Vallejo can set its terms and ultimately negotiate a better deal for the City and the citizens of Vallejo.
I like Verder-Aliga. Indeed, she’s done good work in our community. Unfortunately, however, she is also the person Hannigan refers to as a "consensus builder". When the Vallejo Unified School District school went bankrupt, Verder-Aliga built consensus. She and her fellow Trustees tried to keep the School District’s financial problems a secret until it was too late -- because it was an election year and the truth would have hurt Trustee re-election campaigns (from the Solano Grand Jury report). Instead of building that consensus around secrecy and abusing the public's trust, she should have been more like Schively, who isn't afraid to bring up uncomfortable subjects, ask tough questions and stand alone on issues because it’s the right thing to do for the citizens and the city. I just think Verder-Aliga is too nice to be a strong, independent voice who can say "no" to powerful people.
Vallejo doesn't need more rubber stamping "yes"council members; it needs strong, independent leaders who will question staff recommendations and challenge them to offer more and better. We had the “rubber stampers” who were buddies and had “happy, pleasant” council meetings. And, ultimately, we went bankrupt.

(4) There was no campaign against Measure B, there was no money spent, no booths at the Farmer's Market, no glossy flyers. Schively and I wrote the argument against it -- for reasons that are being proven true today.
Thanks to Hannigan and her City Council majority, we knew the City had wasted the opportunity to restructure all of our employee contracts (80% of the general fund) while in bankruptcy and under protection from litigation. Therefore, the City had not resolved the structural deficit that had pushed the City into bankruptcy in the first place. Pouring additional money into the City’s general fund without solving the structural deficit was just kicking the can down the road again. Unfortunately, because we're in litigation with the VPOA over negotiations of their new contract, I cannot say more about this right now. In a few short months, however, I’ll leave office and be able to speak more freely.
As for Brown and I "hijacking" Measure B money for our pet projects -- is Hannigan accusing us of malfeasance? Because it takes at least four council members to pass a budget. So let me explain this so maybe Hannigan can understand. We operate in a Democracy. A majority of the people in Vallejo voted for Measure B and it won. This increased the City’s General Fund by approximately $10 million over the next 10 years until the tax expires. This year, The City Council voted unanimously to pass the budget -- a budget that included Measure B money. That's not called hijacking, that's called governing.
If Hannigan didn't want Measure B monies spent on upgrading the Florence Douglas Senior Center, adding more cameras and lights on our streets, increasing library services or filling pot holes (these so called "pet projects"), she had the opportunity to make Measure B a tax only for police and fire services. But polls at that time showed that tax wouldn't pass because the people wanted their additional tax dollars to give back some of the services that had been chopped to balance the City’s budget. So Hannigan chose to make Measure B a tax that could be spent on any legal government project or service versus just public safety.
I’m proud to say that this City Council is following the will of the people in spending Measure B monies.
Hannigan is just pouting because she can't pay her campaign donors back with Measure B monies and more raises. Perhaps Hannigan should have completed the remaining three years of her four year City Council term instead of going to a higher (and better paid) office, and she would have had a vote in how this Measure B money is being spent.
Hannigan telling us that we can't cut our way into prosperity is a joke. She once suggested getting rid of the entire public works department and gutting the economic development department to one person so she wouldn't have to cur police officer raises. When Hannigan bailed on local government for a higher office last year, she left the City with a $5.2 million deficit because she had voted with her Council majority to overspend the City's available revenues back in 2009. And she tells us not to cut anything? The irony.
And as far as Hannigan's "shop local" policy, three of her four chosen candidates printed their signs and mailers outside of Vallejo. Dito Dew and Summers' treasurer and campaign consultant. Talking the talk but not walking the walk. Again.
I really wish Hannigan had chosen to take the high road and write an endorsement for her chosen candidates based on their strengths instead of attacking her candidates' opponents and her former colleagues. It would have been far less divisive and focused on the strengths of her candidates instead of highlighting her own public office weaknesses. Then again, maybe her candidates don’t have enough strengths making them the best choice to hold public office.


"Finance report details spending in final days of Vallejo City Council race"
2013-10-26 by Jessica A. York from "Vallejo Times-Herald" [http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_24392973/finance-report-details-spending-final-days-vallejo-city]:
One candidate running for Vallejo City Council is going toe-to-toe in fundraising efforts with a large labor- and real estate-backed political action committee in this year's campaign.
The political season's second major campaign finance reports show that while JumpStart Vallejo, backing candidates Pippin Dew, Jess Malgapo, Tony Summers and Rozzana Verder-Aliga has reported raising some $63,000 and spent nearly $84,000 on the four, as of Oct. 19, Platzer's campaign has raised $81,000 and spent $78,000.
The committee has also spent funds in opposition campaigning against candidates Liat Meitzenheimer, Katy Miessner and Joanne Schivley.
JumpStart Vallejo has spent much of its independent expenditures on advertising for and against candidates, phone banking, consulting, campaign signs and voter polling, according to its reports.
A closer look at Platzer's campaign finance report, which was due for all candidates and committees Thursday, shows a large chunk of his support came in the form of donated paid campaign worker labor.
Platzer's primary backer, Mare Island Railroad Service President Randolph Peterson, has donated so much to Platzer's campaign that he has filed to become a registered "major donor." Of note from Peterson are the more than $10,000 in cash donations to Platzer, and nearly $68,000-worth of campaign worker labor.
On the opposite end of the spending scale are candidates Tony Mapalo and Herman Blackwell, who are reporting neither campaign contributions nor spending over $1,000 for the year.
Of candidates running for three open full-term council seats, reports show:
* Malgapo: Raised more than $62,000 and spent more than $38,000
* Dew: Raised $50,489 and spent nearly $18,000
* Miessner: Raised about $42,000 and spent $43,000
* Meitzenheimer: Raised $20,000 and spent more than $19,000
* Summers: Raised more than $16,000 and spent nearly $18,000.
Malgapo and Dew, both Realtors, also showed large non-monetary contributions to their campaign efforts with more than $16,000 each from the National Association of Realtors Fund for phone banking, consulting and voter lists.
Separately, three candidates contending for a single two-year seat showed two candidates neck-and-neck in campaign spending, while a third trails.
Verder-Aliga has raised nearly a total $33,000 and spent more than $24,000, while Schivley raised $16,544, but spent nearly $21,000. Ronald Johnson Jr. raised a more modest $3,311 and spent $3,510.
Candidates spending more than they raised were covered by previous cash balances in their campaign committees.
Also of note in this campaign reporting period, running from Sept. 22 through Oct. 19, is the involvement of the Vallejo Education Association, which donated $1,360-worth of labor in cell phones and phone banking for JumpStart Vallejo. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 1186 political action committee changed their designation from a state to a local committee this round, due to the high percentage of its expenditures going toward Vallejo's election. It has raised $17,000 this year and spent about $15,000, and paid $10,000 to JumpStart Vallejo
The Vallejo Police Officers Association Political Action Committee also belatedly acknowledged a $10,000 donation to JumpStart Vallejo, made on Sept. 21.
A continuously updated source of campaign contribution and independent expenditure reports is the Vallejo City Clerk's office, which is posting the documents online at www.ci.vallejo.ca.us, under "elections."


"VPOA Conflict of Interest Complaint against Vice Mayor Gomes Goes SPLAT!!"
2013-10-21 from the "Vallejo Independent Bulletin":

In a letter just issued by the FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission), the agency has made clear that they "will not pursue" the complaint brought against Vallejo Vice-Mayor Stephanie Gomes by the VPOA (Vallejo Police Officers Association) President Mat Mustard. The complaint, alleging a conflict of interest on the part of Gomes opened the possibility that eighteen months of negotiations between Vallejo's police union and the city could be negated through litigation. In light of this most recent correspondence, any legal action against Gomes going forward seems unlikely.   
Read the full FPPC response  [http://www.ibvallejo.com/docs/10_21_13_mustard_no_relish.pdf]






"Jump Start or Jump Back?"
2013-10-21 by Councilmember Marti Brown, published by "Vallejo Independent Bulletin":
 A vote for Jump Start Vallejo (JSV) is a vote to jump back into bankruptcy.
I like and respect all of the candidates on the Jump Start Vallejo slate. And I know they have good intentions for the city. But good intentions are frequently derailed by the debts owed to those who get candidates elected to office, especially Political Action Committees (PACs).
PACs expect their candidates to promote and/or prevent legislation that advances their professional interests (e.g., placing binding interest arbitration back on the ballot, deregulating real estate transactions), including increasing salaries and benefits of public employees regardless of whether the city can afford them.
Our city cannot afford to owe anything to anyone except to each and every Vallejoan, and to our collective hopes and aspirations as a community living in a post-bankruptcy world and facing a more than $8 million structural deficit over the next two years.
So far, Jump Start Vallejo has contributions by the Political Action Committees (PAC) of Vallejo Police Officer's Association in the amount of $10,000, the Vallejo Fire Fighter's Association in the amount of $5,000, the San Francisco Fire Fighter's Association also in the amount of $5,000 and the PAC of the California Realtor's Association in the amount of $8,000. Meanwhile, the PAC of the Vallejo Chamber of Commerce contributed $1500 to each Jump Start candidate, which is basically the same as if they had contributed $6,000 to Jump Start Vallejo.
To add insult to jury, the vast majority of these PAC members do not live in the city of Vallejo. I mean seriously, do you think the PAC members of the San Francisco Fire Fighters and California Association of Realtors live in Vallejo and care about the future of our great city?
So, what does all this mean for you and Vallejo?
Unfortunately, if the Jump Start candidates win, they will owe their benefactors the following and Vallejoans will pay the ultimate price:
At a minimum, Jump Start candidates will be expected to place binding interest arbitration (BIA) back on the city's ballot even though the voters approved removing it from the city's charter in 2010. This will result in more Wisconsin arbitrators deciding our financial future like the city's very last arbitrator who was from the State of Wisconsin and knew nothing about California Cities' tax structure, but still decided a portion of our fiscal future. To add insult to injury, it will cost Vallejo tax payers at least $200,000 to place BIA on the ballot. An increase in salaries and benefits for public employees, especially public safety, regardless of whether we can afford it.
Who would support these two initiatives?  Public employees and other unions. Many of which are financially backing Jump Start Vallejo.
Deregulation of real estate related transactions including real estate management (e.g., no rental inspection program, no property registration program for vacant or foreclosed properties) resulting in more power and control by the real estate industry unfettered by local laws or regulations. And no accountability or responsibility for vacant properties owned by out-of-town property owners.
 Who would support this? The Vallejo Board of Realtors and the California real estate industry. And both are backing Jump Start Vallejo. Selling the waterfront for $1 - any development, in any location, and at any price is good, right? Last summer the majority council voted down a development proposal that included selling a portion of the waterfront for $1. Isn't our waterfront worth more than that? Aren't we worth more than that?
Who would support this? The Chamber of Commerce. Also, endorsers of the Jump Start Vallejo PAC.
Placing a "Strong Mayor" initiative on the ballot and a removal of term limits. In California, there is no city with a population of less than 300,000 that has a "strong mayor" form of government. More than 95% of California's towns and cities have a City Manager-Council form of government like Vallejo. Not only that, the City's very own 2009 Charter Review Committee already recommended to a prior council that a "Strong Mayor" form of government would not be a good fit. Again, to place this on the ballot will cost the citizens of Vallejo at least $200,000.
Who would support these two initiatives? Mayor Osby Davis. And he is also an endorser of the JSV PAC.
And lastly, sheer power and political dominance by adding the Solano Democratic Central Committee to the endorsement list. The Democratic Party of Solano County wants to be on the perceived "winning team" and pull along other powerful elected Democrats from outside the city even though one of the Jump Start candidates is a self-identified anti-choice candidate--and anti-choice is NOT a Democratic Party value. Once again, these elected Democrats don't live in Vallejo, but are using their power and influence to take us back into bankruptcy.
Who would support this? The Democratic Central Committee of Solano County and other elected Democrats who just want to "join the crowd" and endorse JSV.
Remember, until the last two years, the PAC interests of Jump Start Vallejo HAVE BEEN IN CONTROL for several decades and you didn't get what you wanted then. Do you really think you will now? Have they really changed?
I apologize that it has taken more than 21 months to unravel more than 40 years of poor city management. But recommitting to the same broken system that got us into the mess isn't the answer (e.g., municipal bankruptcy, ongoing structural deficits).
But don't listen to me. Review the financial filing statements of Jump Start Vallejo and each and every candidate at the city's website and at the City Clerk's webpage. And think about what it will mean for all of us if Jump Start Vallejo's slate of candidates wins.
When it's time to vote on labor contracts or a rental inspection program or another $1 development deal on the waterfront, will Jump Start Vallejo candidates think of you and me? Or will they think of those who got them elected?
This job is tough enough without being beholden to interests that only care about their bottom line and NOT about ours. Vallejo City Council candidates must only be beholden to Vallejo Citizens period - not anyone else, including San Francisco Fire Fighters or realtors who live in LA.
Please vote on November 5 for independent candidates who are only committed to you, the citizens of Vallejo.


"Bankruptcy & the November Election: How Not to Repeat the Mistakes of the Past; Outgoing Council Members Stephanie Gomes and Marti Brown to Hold Community Forum"
Vallejo City Council Members Warn of 'Outside Special Interests' Planning to 'Buy' Vallejo Elections, Set Special Community Forum on 'Bankruptcy" and 'Special Interests'...
Vallejo, CA --
Two Vallejo City Council members -- including Vice Mayor Stephanie Gomes and Council Member Marti Brown -- are warning that Vallejo is facing powerful "outside special interests" that are trying   to buy this November's Vallejo elections.
On Wednesday, October 9, 2013, Vice Mayor Stephanie Gomes and Council Member Marti Brown will hold a community forum on the subject of bankruptcy, special interests, and how to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past in this year's election.
Gomes said, "When I ran for Council in 2005, during the union endorsement interviews, they asked me, 'If we endorse you, will you stay bought?' I was naively shocked then. I'm not shocked anymore. This is what ultimately created Vallejo's financial imbalance."
Brown said, "JumpStart Vallejo is a coalition of outside and local Political Action Committees and other groups who want to dictate to Vallejoans who their next city council should be and they want to do it through outside special interests. This forum is about shedding light on this assault on our local politics through money, power and influence."
Gomes said, "We've come too far, we've worked too hard, over the last eight years to see this election bought by well-funded special interests that will take us back to fiscal crisis. You're either for the people, or you're for the organizations that funded your campaign. You can't be both."
Date: Wednesday, October 9
Time: 6:30 - 8:30 p.m.
Location: Dance Unlimited, 510 Georgia Street, Vallejo, CA


"Don't Fall for the JumpStart Lie!"         
2013-10-07 posted by "Vallejo Deserves Better" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyWjIxvPkg]:
Outside forces say they want to JumpStart Vallejo but they really just want to hijack our city AGAIN.    These are the same out-of-town big money special interests that brought bankruptcy to Vallejo.   
Summers, Dew, Malgapo, Verder-Aliga.   
They're bought and paid-for.   
Outside backers hold the purse strings and the puppet strings.   
Say NO to outsiders controlling our city government this November.   
Don't get burned.   
Say NO to the JumpStart lie.   
[http://www.facebook.com/JumpStartLie]













Friday, October 11, 2013

Uphold Mental Freedom!



A story of “Involuntary” Psychiatric Drugging in Alameda County (aka “Assisted Outpatient Treatment”)
from Amy Coulter, archived at [http://weknowwhatsup.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-story-of-involuntary-psychiatric.html]:
California Assembly Bill 1421, “Mental health: Involuntary treatment” is moving forward to be voted on by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors [http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/formsandpubs/MHArchiveLtrs/MH-Ltr03-01-Attach3.pdf]. The Board of Supervisor’s Health Committee will discuss the AB1421 recommendations on Monday, October 28, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. The meeting will be held in the Board Chambers, located on the 5th Floor at 1221 Oak Street in Oakland.   There are three documents: an AB1421 memo, with detailed program descriptions; an AB1421 program summary and a visual of the new program design.  The revised AB1421 (also known as Laura’s Law) Program recommendations were available for review and public comment via email to Comm@acbhcs.org by September 30, 2013.
 Following are my public comments concerning the implementation of AB1421 in Alameda County or anywhere else; which I understand is to be implemented in some form in all counties within California.  I strongly urge everyone concerned about mental health and social stability to read about my family’s experience and other personal stories and info I have linked to below about the pros and cons of involuntary treatment, the proven but rarely discussed dangers of taking or withdrawing from psychiatric medications, and alternatives to psychiatric medications.  Then, please contact your county and state representatives to let your voice be heard on this heart-wrenching and very costly social issue.  By educating ourselves, we not only protect our health, we protect our freedom.
 I am against AB1421 because of my family’s experience of caring for and supporting loved ones who are prescribed psych drugs for cognitive and/or behavioral symptoms without receiving adequate evaluations of underlying health conditions, environmental exposures, food sensitivities and relationship dynamics in order to better provide individualized in-home and community therapeutic support services.  Instead, there is a “one-size-fits-all” approach, primarily using psych medication “treatments” for “mental illness” diagnosis with little to no support for individuals or families to recognize, understand or counter the many adverse effects of these medications. Legislation already exists to deal with people deemed a threat to themselves or others, and that is Sections 5150, 5250, 5750 (involuntary psychiatric hold) of the California Welfare and Institutions Code [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5150_(involuntary_psychiatric_hold)]. Legislation or lack thereof, is not the problem.  The real problems are the American Psychiatric Association, pharmaceutical industry, Food & Drug Administration and state-sanctioned, insurance-driven, for-profit medical treatments.
I view our mental health system that mainly pushes pharmaceutical “treatments” to be extremely dangerous to individual and public health.  In a 2010 online interview, Investigative Journalist Robert Whitaker discussed the dramatic increase in mental illness disability rates linked to the overuse of psychiatric drugs in the article "Are Prozac and Other Psychiatric Drugs Causing the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America?" [http://www.alternet.org/story/146659/are_prozac_and_other_psychiatric_drugs_causing_the_astonishing_rise_of_mental_illness_in_america]. In his book, "Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomy_of_an_Epidemic], Mr. Whitaker explores why “…the number of disabled mentally ill in the United States tripled over the past two decades. Every day, 1,100 adults and children are added to the government disability rolls because they have become newly disabled by mental illness, with this epidemic spreading most rapidly among our nation’s children.”
 My son was labeled with a serious mental illness diagnosis at the age of 20 and has been in the mental health”scare” system for ten years in Alameda County.  He has been in a revolving door of county and state mental health hospitals, community or locked facility treatment programs, “clean-and-sober” adult residential facilities, county jail, homeless shelters, homeless or living at home, often unsuccessfully.
 I have taken him to holistic psychiatrists for medical tests showing he has food allergies, heavy metals toxicities and other metabolic issues that are known to cause mental and physical illness, and that are worsened by his cruel and unusual punishment while incarcerated at Santa Rita Jail since May 2011 for being seriously mentally ill. He was moved to solitary confinement on February 25, 2013, because he could no longer function in a social setting. This was seven weeks after being returned to SRJ from spending eleven months in a "court-mandated" state hospital for "competency treatment."  In the first six weeks after being admitted to Metropolitan State Hospital on Feb. 15, 2012, his jaw was broken by another inmate patient.  The "treatment" he has been receiving is so far removed from a healing environment, that I am convinced he is being deprived of an opportunity to heal and denied his civil liberties and due process to a timely release into a suitable community setting that considers his unique physiology and trauma that he continues to experience.
 His last court hearing was August 2, 2013, where he was referred to the Conditional Release Program to send him to another state hospital that has a 4-month waiting list. His next progress report court date is October 31, 2013, to see if he is still in solitary confinement at SRJ. What an appropriate date that is--the Day of the Dead!  His voice is being silenced; I am his only voice advocating for compassionate and effective therapies that actually support people like him who are experiencing a debilitating mental illness.
 The available county-funded, court-mandated community “treatment programs” have always been in what I would deem “impoverished housing in impoverished communities” that provides zero to minimal staffing oversight and structured therapeutic activities.  Over the years during my visits, I have watched him deteriorate and be traumatized by the medications or the withdrawal from medications, and the inadequate/hostile housing environments, poor quality/junk food and “counseling” that the county behavioral health department and/or the jail systems provide to people whose health is already compromised.
 It’s clear to me we live in an unhealthy, unbalanced society, and seeing people coming unhinged can be expected.  We know numerous toxins are in the environment and our food system, as well as a corrupt political/corporate state that promotes high anxiety, competition and division within society.  It is also apparent by the recurring battle over deficit ceilings and the unprecedented government shutdown, those in legislative leadership are out of touch and unconcerned about how their decisions affect the lives of average citizens, our local communities and the environment.
 A grand experiment of drugging, poisoning and mis-educating the public is happening.  Government and corporate partnerships create public health policies and laws that threaten communities, such as the unfettered promotion of FDA- and non-FDA-approved medications.  For example, the 2013 revised Monograph for Risperdal Consta (a common neuroleptic and one my son has been forced to take) notes that psychosis and suicidal thoughts may be side effects both of taking and withdrawing from the drug [http://www.janssen.ca/product/186]. In Oakland, California, Pacific Research Partners, pays people to participate in clinical trials of more than 200 new non-approved drugs [http://www.pacifictrials.com/study-partcipation/research-types/]. Often people are prescribed these drugs without being fully informed that "prescription drugs are sometimes the cause of violent thoughts, acts, and behaviors” [https://www.rxisk.org/Research/SpecialtyFilter.aspx?SpecialtyFilter=8].
 Many ill-informed patients and their families struggle with the original symptoms along with the medication side effects and withdrawal psychosis when people stop these medications suddenly, often due to the way the drugs make them feel.  The danger lies not just in the particular circumstances that people with mental illness face but in a system of clinical research that has been thoroughly co-opted by market forces, so that many studies have become little more than covert instruments for promoting drugs [http://www.narpa.org/makingakilling.htm].
 Neuroleptic drugs used to treat people diagnosed with “serious mental illness” are linked to increased risk of violence, including many documented incidents of people acting upon suicidal, homicidal and multi-cidal ideations [http://involuntarytransformation.blogspot.com/p/neuroleptic-drugs-and-violence.html#.Ulh-LCS5c6F].
If we look carefully at those who have committed the epidemic of killings, they are mostly people who have, in fact, been in treatment. The Attorney General of Connecticut is resisting the release of Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza’s records, for fear that they might “cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications” [http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/09/connecticut-resisting-release-adam-lanza-medical-records/].
Congressman Jeff Miller is calling for an investigation into whether the psychiatric medications Aaron Alexis, the Navy Yard shooter was taking were connected to his behavior [http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/09/congressman-investigates-medications-role-navy-yard-shooting/]. 
National Institute of Mental Health Director Thomas Insel has acknowledged that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the book on which all current psychiatric diagnoses are premised “lacks validity” [http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/05/nimh-backing-away-from-dsm/], and that antipsychotics worsen long-term outcomes [http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/08/nimh-director-acknowledges-antipsychotics-worsen-long-term-outcome/].
Only a fraction of those deemed to be at risk of psychosis actually progress to psychosis [http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/08/1-in-4-considered-high-risk-for-psychosis-actually-become-psychotic/].
And, most importantly, research indicates that forced treatment does not work [http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/04/community-treatment-orders-forced-treatment-dont-work/].
Eleven percent of the population is taking psychiatry’s so-called antidepressants, and at least 20% are taking one or more psychoactive drug [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db76.htm]. 
Psychiatry is tied to pharma, and as long as pharma’s revenues continue to rise, there’s no reason to stop or even slow down.
 Mental illness affects whole families and communities!   Many mental health consumers, peer organizations, and psychiatric survivors emphasize, “nothing about us without us” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_About_Us_Without_Us]. 
Mental health treatments must include daily therapeutic oversight of and interaction with the people who are prescribed or required to take neuroleptic and other psychiatric medications by caring and well-trained community support staff, peers, and family members.  The county and state mental health departments should use the money currently spent on medication compliance efforts to fund living wage jobs in the community to provide safe, stable, healthy, affordable housing and therapies for people recovering from a mental / emotional breakdown.
 Outspoken proponents of “medication compliance” are often corporate-funded bureaucrats and politicians; non-profit, family or peer mental health support organizations; or family advocates in desperate need of effective and ongoing community support services.
Vermont State's Mental Health Department highlights the DANGERS IN OUR CURRENT APPROACH TO PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT while implementing a new community-oriented mental healthcare delivery system [http://mentalhealth.vermont.gov/sites/dmh/files/About/Soteria_Presentation_DMH_Conference_2012_FINAL.pdf].
 Many psychiatric survivors like Pat Risser would say We don't have a "mental HEALTH" system; we have a "mental ILLNESS" system [http://www.patrisser.com/helpingclients/ProblemWithMentalIllness.html], and it’s a "Lack of Voluntary Services to Meet Needs of Mental Health Clients" (This is not a fancy website, but the author provides some history and his perspective about systemic problems in the mental health care treatments available.)                                                            
 Please share the online material referenced in the attached document I created about “Assisted Outpatient Treatment” legislation for people living with serious mental illness.  I’ve tried to represent both sides of the issue. (If you want the document, send me an message)
 I dream of the day when it is recognized that we all have limitations but that we are more than those limitations. We are multi-faceted individuals and we all possess many strengths and talents and should focus on those instead of any limitations or dis-abilities.   I hope you find these references helpful.  Please take care of yourself and each other.
[signed] Amy Coulter [San Leandro, CA  94578] [peacevizion@yahoo.com]
 p.s. I have also emailed this to the county health officials and legislators in a separate email.


CENTRAL ISSUE OF ASSISTED OUTPATIENT TREATMENT (AOT) [http://www.academia.edu/462353/Pushing_Neuroleptics_on_Schizophrenics]: “When considering the merits of forced treatment using neuroleptics, several competing viewpoints can be identified. In this debate, there are two polar-opposite answers: (1) that being schizophrenic is reason enough to necessitate neuroleptic pharmacotherapy, regardless of patient wishes, and (2) that neuroleptic treatment should never be provided for schizophrenic patients unless they request it. There are also a range of conditional ‘in-between’ answers (i.e. neuroleptics should only be involuntarily administered under certain conditions).”


ASSISTED OUTPATIENT TREATMENT USING ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES
* Healing Homes of Finland, Open Dialogue [http://beyondmeds.com/2011/03/17/opendialogdoc/]
* What is Orthomolecular Medicine? [http://www.kuninhealth.com/index.php?page=what-is-orthomolecular-medicine]
* Online articles and videos by Orthomolecular Psychiatrist Dr. Richard Kunin [http://www.kuninhealth.com/index.php?page=articles-and-videos]
* Integrative Psychiatry [http://www.optimalhealthspectrums.com/integrative-psychiatry-bay-area/]
* Good news is reported in mental health care in Vermont [http://www.timesargus.com/article/20130622/NEWS03/706229959/0/RSS05]
* [http://www.madinamerica.com/2012/08/steven-morgan-project-director-of-the-vermont-soteria-project-reflects-on-working-with-psychosis/]: “When Hurricane Irene washed away Vermont’s state mental hospital, Vermont’s government chose to replace it with a network of smaller, community-based and alternative approaches to mental health care. Citizens of Vermont are legally entitled to alternatives to psychiatric medication; Soteria Vermont will be the second replication in the United States (after Alaska’s) of Loren Mosher’s Soteria project which demonstrated in the 1970s the efficacy of housing people experiencing first psychotic breaks with sympathetic non-professionals as housemates…The original Soteria was dedicated to using little or no psychiatric medication, and to using that only in the short term to stabilize a crisis. Repeated analyses of its records show extremely robust and long-lasting recovery from even the most extreme psychotic states.  Steven Morgan, the project’s director, gives a short history of the project’s origins. Beginning this fall, Steven will be seeking a site for the house and creating a training program for the staff with the goal of opening the house’s doors in the fall of 2013. Vermont has dedicated $1 million per year to the project.” Soteria presentation by Steven Morgan [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaawL-135pE]
* Vermont Mental Health Reform Act 2012 excerpt [http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2012/Acts/ACT079.pdf]: (3) Contract for a voluntary five-bed residence for individuals seeking to avoid or reduce reliance on medication or having an initial episode of psychosis. The residence shall be peer supported and noncoercive, and…..”
* Short-stay “Second Story Respite House in Santa Cruz, California [http://www.secondstoryhouse.org/about.html]
* Psychiatric Treatment Risks and Holistic Mental Health Treatments [http://discoverandrecover.wordpress.com/]
* “Twenty-Nine Medical Causes of Schizophrenia" excerpted from Nutrition and Mental Illness by the late Carl C. Pfeiffer, Ph.D., M.D. [http://www.alternativementalhealth.com/articles/causesofschizophrenia.htm]
* “Rethinking Schizophrenia” by Dr. Thomas Insel, Director of National Institute of Mental Health [http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/publications/rethinking-schizophrenia.shtml]: “Treatments, especially pharmacological treatments, have been in wide use for nearly half a century, yet there is little evidence that these treatments have substantially improved outcomes for most people with schizophrenia.”  “Sustained recovery occurs in less than 14% within the first five years following a psychotic episode.
* Recovery From Schizophrenia [http://recoveryfromschizophrenia.org/]: “Medications are of course what can often make the biggest difference the quickest, and they are heavily promoted by an industry that makes billions of dollars of profits off them, so it is easy to be seduced into  believing that they should be the cornerstone of treatment.  However, they also come with heavy costs in terms of both subjective and objective negative side effects, and some of these effects can even be fatal. A better approach is to first try alternatives wherever possible, so that at least at times medication use can be avoided altogether. And then, if alternatives fail to succeed and medication does seem necessary, use as little as possible and continue to search for other ways to improve coping over time so that medications can perhaps be eventually reduced or discontinued.”   
* Toward a Participatory and Risk Limiting Approach to Neuroleptic Drugs [http://psychrights.org/Research/Digest/NLPs/EHPPAderholdandStastnyonNeuroleptics.pdf]
* NY Times “Sunday Dialogue Treating the Mentally Ill [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-treating-the-mentally-ill.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0] – “Mandated treatment is a blunt instrument that may drive more people away from seeking care than it compels into care.”  “Coercion is sometimes necessary, but we should be clear about its cost: trust and collaboration are largely incompatible with force. Genuine partnership can be a balm for many hurts, and open the way for some people to real and lasting growth.”
* World's largest site on non-drug approaches for mental health [http://www.alternativementalhealth.com/].
* International Society for Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry (ISEPP) [http://isepp.wordpress.com/about-isepp/] is an organization of people who find, study, use and promote safe, humane and life-enhancing approaches to helping people who are experiencing emotional distress, life crises, difficult dilemmas, spiritual emergencies and other forms of overwhelm and who, due to those experiences, are diagnosed with mental disorders.
* Changing how we talk about mental illness [http://stigmanet.net/#08feb13]: “I’m afraid that no substantive change will occur because we are discussing mental health in the abstract sphere of politics rather that in the intimate communities where we live day to day — places like our homes, jobs, schools, faith communities and social gatherings.  As a society, we don’t talk about these issues, at least not in the personal ways that raise awareness, foster advocacy and lead to meaningful change. We talk about the dangers of mental health in a way that causes those who are actually living with mental-health challenges to gather in hushed circles and share their struggles, wisdom and perspective with only a select few.”

QUOTES AND REVIEWS IN FAVOR OF ASSISTED OUTPATIENT TREATMENT
* Stopping the Revolving Door - A Civil Approach to Treating Severe Mental Illness from Treatment Advocacy Center [http://vimeo.com/26171883] [http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/]
* Mental Illness Policy [http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/]
* In Defense Of Antidepressants [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/opinion/sunday/10antidepressants.html]
* Parents’ perspectives on involuntary treatment after son’s medication ‘non-compliance’ [http://www.peteearley.com/2013/07/22/mother-condemns-nami-and-whitaker-blood-on-their-hands/]
* A reporter’s perspective on the NAMI, Robert Whitaker, and medication “non-compliance” controversy [http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/marvin-ross/journalists-are-not-medical-experts_b_3643655.html]
* News and links to Battle Mental Illness Bias [http://stigmanet.net/]

QUOTES AND REVIEWS AGAINST ASSISTED OUTPATIENT TREATMENT
* AB1421 Position Statement from Peers Envisioning and Engaging in Recovery [http://www.peersnet.org/resources/articles/peers-position-paper-ab-1421]
* On the relationship between NAMI, the Treatment Advocacy Center, and the Neo-Eugenics Movement [http://feptopp.com/2013/04/01/on-the-relationship-between-nami-tac-and-the-neo-eugenics-movement/]
* 7 Reasons America’s Mental Health Industry Is a Threat to Our Sanity [http://www.alternet.org/story/153634/7_reasons_america's_mental_health_industry_is_a_threat_to_our_sanity?paging=off]
* When Consent is Misinformed:  Addressing Conflicts of Interest and the Therapeutic Misconception [http://www.academia.edu/462352/When_Consent_is_Misinformed_Addressing_Conflicts_of_Interest_and_the_Therapeutic_Misconception]
* How Conjecture Becomes Medical Fact [http://www.madinamerica.com/2012/08/anosognosia-how-conjecture-becomes-medical-fact/]
* New York Times Invites Readers to a Dialogue on Forced Treatment [http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/01/ny-times-invites-readers-to-a-dialogue-on-forced-treatment/#comment-19770]
* E. Fuller Torrey’s Review of ‘Anatomy of an Epidemic’:  What does it reveal about the rational for forced treatment? [http://www.madinamerica.com/2012/05/e-fuller-torreys-review-of-anatomy-of-an-epidemic-what-does-it-reveal-about-the-rationale-for-forced-treatment/]
* Misused research by D.J. Jaffe and Dr. E.F. Torrey [http://stigmanet.net/#01oct11]
* The Truth Behind Kendra's Law - Reading Past the TAC (Treatment Advocacy Center) fear mongering babble and in-between the lines of deceit [http://bipolar-stanscroniclesandnarritive.blogspot.com/2010/06/truth-behind-kendras-law-reading-past.html]
* Seven dirty secrets that counselors and mental health pros will never reveal [http://www.naturalnews.com/041478_psychologists_mental_health_industry_secrets.html]
* Department of Mental Health Illegal Forced Psychiatric Drugging [http://feptopp.com/2013/04/01/illegal-forced-psychiatric-drugging-is-torture/]
* Family Advocate at August 12, 2013 MHB Meeting:  “We reserve the right to disagree and not be isolated or attacked for it.  We want discussion and reform of mental health treatments and to stop the use of incarceration as a means of dealing with traumatized and economically disadvantage people.  I believe that any law that contains provisions for forced drugging is an endorsement of torture, as has been made clear by the resolution adopted by the United Nations.  In that light, it is clear from the history of selective enforcement of the laws regarding ‘treatment of the mentally ill’, that the authorities are free to pick and choose what provisions of the law they wish to enforce, while ignoring others or outright refusing to enforce them (a la California Penal Code 2968).  Therefore, any provision of any law that legalizes the forced drugging of any individual is the legalization of torture…The effort to push this law through at this time should come as no surprise to any of us, given the widespread dissemination of the U.S. government's policies of torture, rendition, and assassination.  I would also like to point out that persons who are labeled paranoid schizophrenics because they believe the government is watching them are actually more in touch with reality than those who believe the U.S. government is a democracy. Therefore, this law targets the wrong group of people as delusional.”
* A parent advocate said in a recent discussion about mental health treatments and AB1421: “…It has been my contention all along, without having done the research that you are performing, that AB1421 is all about money.  Also, it increases the police powers of the state, which is a political reaction to the growing instability of the economy…My perspective, after 13 years of organizing in this field, is that the forces which benefit from the status quo (the pharmaceutical corporations, the psychiatric profession, the mental health bureaucrats, and the insurance companies) have decided to anoint NAMI and TAC as the organizations that speak for the persons who want and need help with their mental problems.  Both NAMI and TAC get their money from big wealthy donors.  These are the organizations from within the community that supposedly speak for us, but in reality they push for the plans that benefit the big money and make our problems worse.  In this way, most of us are left with our little fragmented organizations, no money, and no way to influence public opinion.  The public remains in the dark and educated only to the extent that big $ wants them to be.  Thus, the general public still buys into the "just make them take their meds" philosophy, when there is so much more to the picture that needs to be questioned and addressed.  The media, which could effectively change this consciousness, is a willing collaborator in the mis-education of the public through their financial ties to big pharma and the insurance companies.  The financial crisis of the entire system is pushing this trend to simply drug more and more people, without even hospitalizing them.”
* A MH consumer and peer advocate said in the same discussion:  “I was fortunately able to attend the MHSOAC conference that was held on July 25, 2013 concerning the state's position concerning the adoption of AB1421…the state's position was this: All the counties are expected to adopt AB1421 or at least some portion of the bill. The bill will still maintain its non-mandatory status, and would not be tied to money. The minutes are now currently available [http://www.mhsoac.ca.gov/meetings/Prior_Meetings_2013_07.aspx]. If you read between the lines this bill is about money; specifically, addressing those consumers that are receiving financial assistance from SSI, SSDI, Medi-care, and Medicaid. The cost-to-benefit ratio of the current system that is in place has been deemed unsustainable and AB1421 addresses this issue. This is not so much about health and wellness as it is about stopping the "bleed" from the social security system.”
* Psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin points out the conflict of interest between the psychiatric and pharmaceutical industries [http://www.breggin.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=93].
* Laws that legalize involuntary drugging were deemed torture by U.N. Special Rapporteur Juane E. Mendez in his March 2013 statement on “Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” [http://www.madinamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/torture.pdf]
* Protect yourself by educating yourself [http://www.naturalnews.com/040634_mental_health_President_Obama_Big_Pharma.html]. It is the only way. Educate yourself about the mind and how it works. Learn how to have healthy relationships. Were you aware that depression follows unhealthy relationships?  Learn about self-sabotage. Learn why you often do the opposite of what is healthy and why you do it. When you understand these things, your burden will be much lighter. Healthy choices will become clear and possible.  This vital education, I am afraid, is the only line of defense against the escalating power and ignorance of the system that - without a doubt - would see your brain on drugs for life.

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

"City of Fresno Finds New Ways to Harass the Homeless"

Human Rights abuse in the City of Fresno [link]

2013-10-09 by Mike Rhodes, editor of The Fresno Alliance newspaper [https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/10/09/18744608.php]:
The City of Fresno policy on getting rid of the homeless is evolving and becoming harsher by the day. They have now developed a policy that effectively prevents homeless people from having any more property than they can carry. If a homeless person leaves their shopping cart for ½ hour to eat at the Poverello House, they will probably return to find it and all of their property gone.

The City of Fresno, which recently destroyed most of the homeless encampments in downtown Fresno, has developed new tactics to attack the homeless. To read about the bulldozing of those encampments (earlier this year), see:
[http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/03/18742623.php]
[http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/09/18742970.php]
[http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/08/26/18742115.php]
[http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/08/27/18742188.php]
[http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/08/02/18740840.php]
[http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/08/02/18740839.php]
As the bulldozing of homeless encampments in downtown Fresno was taking place, the police department established a task force of four officers whose job is to focus on making sure the homeless do not re-establish any encampments. The task force would allow homeless people to sleep on the sidewalks at night, but at daybreak they would blast them out of bed with their PA systems. Homeless people could sleep at night, but could not establish anything permanent, like a tent or shelter.
About two weeks ago, news reports in the corporate media started running stories about the shopping carts that were lined up on Santa Clara street, near the Poverello House (a homeless center). Reports of drug sales and other illegal activity was fed to the corporate media by the police department and City Hall, resulting in an effort to “clean up” the problem. Last week, the police and sanitation workers moved in and started removing the shopping carts. Homeless people who left their shopping carts to eat (or shower) at the Poverello House would return to find their property gone.
Eventually, all of the shopping carts on Santa Clara Street were removed (there were usually about 100 of them). Signs were posted in the area informing the homeless that they could call a number and find out where their property was being stored. The city’s policy is to store the property for 90 days.
This week I have observed the police task force, on several occasions, taking this policy one step further. Yesterday I saw a man on F street (just north of Santa Clara) with a shopping cart and lots of property. He looked tired and was sitting on the curb. The police task force members saw him and pulled up in their patrol car. Within minutes, a flat bed truck pulled up and started removing the shopping carts. Then, city sanitation workers started bagging and hauling off the man’s property. The police noticed me taking photos and came over to chat. They said that the man had “asked us to store his property.” Since he had no way to move it, since the police took his shopping cart, he probably didn’t have much of a choice.
This morning on Santa Clara I saw the task force officers again. This time they were sitting in their car as sanitation workers were finishing a clean up. On the flat bed truck were several shopping carts, a bed, and some bags of what appeared to be clothes. As I started taking photos of the scene the police jumped out of their car and engaged me in a conversation that started out with them telling me that they know who I am and that they read my articles. I told them that “a lot of people read my articles.” I noticed the officer had a video camera protruding from the right side of his head (perhaps attached to his sunglasses) and realized he was recording this conversation. He continued by telling me that they don’t mind if I’m here to observe what they are doing. I commented that this was a public street and I really didn’t need their permission to be there.
While the officer and I were chatting a homeless guy came out of the Poverello House saying that they (the police) were trying to take his property. The officers went out of their way (making sure that I was seeing how well they interact with the homeless) to direct the sanitation workers to return the man’s property.
The streets in front of the Poverello House are now clean, they have been swept, and the curbs have been painted red to prevent people from parking. From my observation, the new policy results in the police to identifying property or shopping carts that have been left unattended, they call the sanitation department, and have it hauled away. They leave behind a notice that is posted on a nearby wall, informing people where to call to re-claim their property.
If the police continue to aggressively pursue this policy, homeless people will have most of their shopping carts and property confiscated before very long. Nobody can constantly watch their property (you have to go to the bathroom or eat sometime). Homeless people are prevented from re-claiming their property, because they have no place to put it. The new policy effectively forces homeless people to only keep what they can carry with them at all times.

All photos by Michael Rhodes
Posting the Notice: This photo shows the sanitation workers posting a notice, saying who to call, if you want to get your property back. The only problem is - If you don’t have any safe place to put your property, they will just take it again.

A Close Up of the Notice

I Want My Property Back! This is the homeless guy who got there just in time to stop them from hauling away his property.

The Scene on F Street: This photo shows the police watching as city sanitation workers remove a homeless persons property. Kind of reminds me of the Grinch Who Stole Christmas. How much more miserable can they make life for the homeless here in Fresno?

---
" Agenda item October 31st" 2013-10-11 comment by Dan Waterhouse, Newslink: I just heard Fresno PD will be going to City Council on the 31st with a proposal to implement in Fresno what Visalia just did. Visalia is confiscating shopping carts as stolen property and either providing plastic bags to put their stuff in, or directing the homeless to storage at the Visalia rescue mission. If implemented, city workers will be out collecting carts. Some carts have been recycled. Churches in the Fresno area do buy them from recyclers, fix them as needed, and then give them to homeless people. Sooner or later one of these carts will get confiscated and set off a lawsuit on either illegal seizure or religious freedom grounds.

Monday, October 7, 2013

Organize a Labor Union!

Northbay MDS does not claim to endorse the effectiveness of the content linked to in the following articles and webpages. And remember, before any campaign against a hostile management, it is a necessity to have an effective solidarity network with the public, for support and for standing up against harassment, deprivation of wages, etc. For further ideas on creating an effective campaign, contact [NorthbayMDS@gmail.com]!

Strategic Organizing [union-organizing.org/about]

Zero Tolerance Policies: Fortress or Paper Tiger?
[link]

Fast Food Workers Win a Union…through Zoolidarity [link]

One-Day Strikes: A Word to the Wise [link]

Even the crafty old Wizard knows the power of collective bargaining...

Fast Food Workers Win a Union…through Zoolidarity

Organize a Labor Union! [link]

2013-10-07 by Shamus Cooke [http://www.labornotes.org/blogs/2013/10/fast-food-workers-win-union-through-zoolidarity]:
Shamus Cooke is a social service worker and an officer of SEIU 503.
---
Fast food workers at the Oregon Zoo defied the odds and voted in a union, but they started acting like a union well before the vote, with "zoolidarity" actions. Photo: Laborers Local 483.

Union members have watched in awe as fast food workers struck over the last year, calling for “$15 and a union.” Despite the slogan, however, the prevailing wisdom has been that union recognition isn’t really the goal; that’s too hard against giant employers insulated by a layer of franchises, with a part-time and transient workforce [http://www.labornotes.org/2013/06/fast-food-strikes-whats-cooking].
Last month 142 mostly part-time food service workers, public employees at the Oregon Zoo, showed it could be done, winning a landslide election to join Laborers Local 483 in Portland. They join 137 already-union admissions and custodial employees at the zoo—about half of these are temps—doubling the size and power of the bargaining unit just in time for contract negotiations. Like the rest of Fast Food Nation, these food service workers reflect a changing economy and a changing workforce. When I worked at the Oregon Zoo as a teenager making burgers and fries, the workforce was overwhelmingly high school- and college-aged. No more. Because of the ongoing jobs crisis, many zoo food workers have college degrees or are long-term employees. Because of the low wages and the zoo’s strategy of using temporary employees, many are forced to take multiple jobs. The zoo uses the word “temporary” to refer to classifications under a cap of 1,040 hours per year. Some work 40 hours a week for up to six months. The food workforce swells in the summer, with food carts and cafés sprinkled across the zoo. Others work year-round, but part-time, some as little as one or two days a month. Many are “on call.” “Did you know that during your whole last visit to the Zoo you probably encountered only us temporary workers?” said zoo worker Ellen Ino, testifying last year at a Portland Jobs with Justice event that highlighted the abuse of temporary and seasonal job classifications by local public employers. Ino said zoo members are often “amazed that the person who sold them the membership in July, handled their membership questions throughout the high season, tore their tickets in October, ran around the campus in November and December during Zoolights… that those workers are not considered permanent employees with benefits.”

Strong Committee -
Several ingredients made the nine-month campaign successful. Organizers from Local 483 were inspired by the techniques taught by Jason Mann, a Canadian organizer, educator, and founder of Strategic Organizing, which offers advice to unions about strategies and using technology and social media. Mann’s organizing techniques were based on surveying unions that had carried out successful organizing drives, discovering their key strategies and tactics—such as a strong internal organizing committee, direct action at the workplace, a community campaign, and use of social media. (See "A Troublemaker’s Handbook" for similar advice.) One of the tactics Mann suggests is using workplace surveys to agitate about working conditions. When a Local 483 organizer was surveying existing members at the zoo, a food service worker found the flyer on a bulletin board and filled out the survey, leading to contact with several other “foodies.” The most important aspect of the campaign was, of course, a strong, 27-member worker-led organizing committee that worked hard to recruit and train others. “Their energy infected the rest of the workplace,” said Local 483 organizer Tobias Green—producing a cohesive workplace that began to think and act more united. Workers called their workplace culture “zoolidarity” throughout the campaign. The campaign also made use of social media, opening up a “secret” Facebook page before the drive went public. This tactic is risky since published information can find its way back to management, but the zoo workers invited people they trusted into the Facebook group. Soon the page was used as an auxiliary tool to share information, support each other, and complain about work—i.e., to build solidarity. “The Facebook page allowed us to answer questions about unions, address gossip at the zoo, announce organizing meetings, and later to respond to anti-union rumors that crept into the workplace,” member-organizer Matt Ellison said. Some of the scare tactics included the old favorites: “You’re all going to be laid off and will have to reapply,” “the 483 contract has a lower hours cap,” “they just want your dues,” “you are hurting the zoo.”

‘Quick Hits’ -
One characteristic of winning drives is that workers start acting like a union before the election. Zoo workers did “quick hits”—direct action to make popular worksite demands that immediately improved working conditions. These were demands that management would look either foolish or heartless to reject. For example, zoo workers marched on the boss mid-campaign to deliver a petition that demanded cooler conditions for food workers, both those stationed outside during hot days and those inside the hot, stuffy restaurants. Management conceded and swapped out higher-wattage light bulbs for cooler ones, supplied bottles of water, and fixed a fan that had been broken for months. This victory strengthened the campaign at a critical juncture. Workers now want to use their new union power to make the zoo a better place to work and to visit. They begin bargaining this month, joining (and significantly strengthening) an existing Local 483 bargaining unit that is entering negotiations. Temps will be the majority covered under the contract. Priorities include higher wages, full-time jobs, and paid sick days, said worker-organizer Anne McDonnell.

Chevron : A Fascist Company acting Progressive

The articles here show that Chevron is campaigning on being communitarians, taking on the ideas of their political rivals, the "Richmond Progressive Alliance", so that the residents of Richmond will forget that Chevron tried to destroy their city by illegally withholding millions of dollars in taxes, and knowingly engaging in illegal pollution activities. Chevron is also a company which supports and funds politicians who seek to de-regulate the petroleum industry and abolish corporate taxes, as the second article shows. Same tiger, same stripes!

"Chevron opens doors to make amends with Richmond"
2013-10-07 by Andrew Ross from "San Francisco Chronicle" [http://www.sfgate.com/business/bottomline/article/Chevron-opens-doors-to-make-amends-with-Richmond-4876498.php]:
Fourteen months after a refinery fire that sent 15,000 residents to local hospitals, Chevron opened the gates of its 2,900-acre Richmond complex to the public on Saturday, including such treats as bus tours down "Main Street" and "Petrolite Street."   
It was Chevron's third annual Community Tour Day - not held last year - and part of the San Ramon energy giant's drive to improve relations with a community that's been none-too pleased with the city's largest employer and taxpayer of late.    
"The community has the opportunity to see firsthand what we do behind our fence and understand our commitment to operating safely," said the refinery's general manager, Kory Judd. "Our neighbors were able to learn more about what we do, who we are and have an open conversation with our employees."   
Last week, Chevron announced a $15.5 million "community revitalization initiative" to fund an economic development plan for the city's underserved neighborhoods and education programs to help raise test scores, college readiness and Stem-based career preparation for the city's youth.    
"We are committed to not only improving the quality of life for all residents but transforming the economic landscape of this community," said Judd.   
In addition to causing thousands of coughing and spluttering residents to seek medical treatment during the fire, Chevron had to cough up $3 million in criminal and civil fines, and faces at least three civil lawsuits, including one by the city of Richmond.    
The five-year revitalization initiative, developed in partnership with local businesses, public officials, community activists and nonprofits, will also encourage financial institutions to dole out small business and home loans plus develop job-training, adult education and other programs.   
Not all residents are impressed, including the city's Green Party mayor, Gayle McLaughlin, who recently returned from a trip to Ecuador and made it clear whose side she's on in the bitter, protracted, multibillion-dollar legal battle between Chevron and Ecuadoran plaintiffs over pollution damage in the Ecuadoran rain forest.    
"We're all interconnected, and this is an international struggle against corporate domination," McLaughlin declared on her return.  
Others are more supportive of the initiative. "I don't always agree with Chevron, but I agree with this project," said Henry Clark, executive director of the West County Toxics Coalition, an environmental advocacy group in Richmond.     
--
More information on the initiative at is www.chevronrichmond.com/revitalizerichmond.


"Chevron gives $2.3 million to super PAC"
2012-10-31 by Andrew Ross from "San Francisco Chronicle" [http://www.sfgate.com/business/bottomline/article/Chevron-gives-2-3-million-to-super-PAC-3994944.php]:
According to a TV ad that has been running repeatedly on local stations in California's Central Coast area, Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara, "voted to take $6 trillion from our children and grandchildren to pay for failed Washington policies that are simply not working." Her "reckless spending has to stop - Defeat Lois Capps," says the 30-second spot, which features a tot in a cot overlaid by a grim-looking congresswoman.     
A considerable amount of money is being wagered against Capps, who is in a particularly tight race with former Republican Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado. Much of it - $402,000 at last count - has been spent by an outfit called the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC.    
This month, this same PAC received a $2.3 million contribution from Chevron Corp. of San Ramon. Chevron's contribution is by far the largest made by an American public company to a super PAC since the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court freed all constraints on corporate political spending in the Citizens United case.     It's also one of only five super PAC donations made by a Fortune 500 company since 2010, according to the Center for Public Integrity.     
Most super PAC contributions come from high-wealth individuals like Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who along with his wife has given $5 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund. Together, the Adelsons and Chevron account for 80 percent of the money raised by the super PAC this election season.     
Chevron, one of the world's largest energy companies, is no stranger to political campaigns, especially as they relate to its corporate values. "We ... support political candidates who and political organizations or ballot measures that are committed to economic development, free enterprise and good government," the company states on its website.   
When it comes to handing out money, however, Chevron's values appear to align closely with those of conservative organizations and Republican candidates. Among the big-dollar contributions listed by Chevron in 2011, for example, were $500,000 to the conservative-leaning U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and $150,000 to the Republican Governors Association (compared with $50,000 to the Democratic Governors Association).    
Other recent contributions include $500,000 to the Business Industry Political Action Committee, 83 percent of whose donations went to Republican candidates in 2008, and whose stated purpose is to oppose the political influence of trade unions, along with "big government spending."     
So far in 2012, Chevron contributed $417,500 to House Republican candidates nationwide, compared with $40,000 for Democrats. GOP Senate candidates have received $114,500, compared with $12,000 for Democrats; $10,000 of that went to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.    
The Congressional Leadership Fund, founded last October, is a subsidiary of the American Action Network, a self-described "social welfare organization" that seeks to "create, encourage and promote center-right policies."     
Founded in 2010 by former Minnesota GOP Sen. Norm Coleman and Rob Collins, a former chief of staff to current House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., the 501 (c)(4) organization, which is allowed to keep the source of its contributions anonymous, spent $26 million on Republican candidates its first year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.    
This year, among the candidates targeted with $2.2 million in attack ads funded by American Action Network is NASA astronaut Jose Hernandez, a Democrat looking to unseat Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock (Stanislaus County). Among Hernandez's alleged sins: supporting the Obama administration's $700 billion stimulus program and the Affordable Care Act. "Take $700 billion from Medicare and call us in the morning. Say no to Jose," goes the ad, which is in heavy rotation in the Sacramento and Central California television markets.   
Unstated in the ads attacking Capps is her long-standing opposition to oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coast, which the Republican-controlled House attempted to open up for exploration in the last session. We can't say whether that played into Chevron's decision to cough up $2.3 million for a Republican-leaning super PAC, although we did ask the company, which continues to benefit from the federal government's generous oil production tax break, whether its largesse had any political motivation.     
"Chevron exercises its right to participate in the political process through various contributions," a spokesman e-mailed me. "All of our political contributions are fully disclosed. We support political initiatives and candidates that are committed to economic development; creating abundant, affordable energy; strengthening American businesses; and good government."    
Just like it says on the website.