Thursday, August 6, 2020

Voice of OC blasts the County for its lack of transparency; 32 new Covid deaths reported


✅ Santana: The County of Orange Isn’t Transparent or Open When it Comes to Coronavirus

Voice of OC

By Norberto Santana Jr. [Editor in chief]


     I like Orange County CEO Frank Kim and respect his work but was floored last week when he insisted the County of Orange has been transparent and open about its handling of the Coronavirus.
     Far from it.

     I would have challenged Kim directly at last Thursday’s press conference on this misstatement but the county media PR-machine he declared as fully dedicated to openness doesn’t allow reporters to ask follow up questions.

     So much for transparency and openness.

. . .

     As this column goes to publication, according to sources close the matter, Kim is reportedly asking county supervisors about their schedule availability to hold a special meeting – potentially on Friday – to allow County Supervisor Lisa Bartlett to schedule a controversial item extending supervisors’ term limits, for the third time this month.

     Keep in mind that under the state’s open meeting laws, the Ralph M. Brown Act, supervisors aren’t supposed to be debating public policy in private.

. . .

     Since we are on the topic of public meetings, which Kim so ardently defended in his speech about the commitment to openness by county supervisors, let’s talk about how unevenly county supervisors enforce their public comment rules.

     We just reported today that an Orange County Superior Court concluded there was little doubt about the uneven way that current chairwoman [Michelle] Steel conducts meetings, creating grave constitutional deficiencies for public participation.

     If Steel likes your point of view or position, you get extended time to speak. If she doesn’t, you get held to the time limit, which is often times shortened from three minutes to two in recent meetings.
     In addition to the uneven handling of public comment, there’s the whole structure that supervisors’ adopted during the outbreak of the pandemic to only encourage in-person commenting – at a time where public health advisories asked people to refrain from being indoors without masks.

     So any member of the public that wanted more mask enforcement or education had to come down to the county board meeting and stand next to activists who don’t wear masks or practice social distancing to make their voices heard.

     The result was an uneven indication of public comment regarding the mask issue, one which ultimately muddied policymaking by supervisors to the point that it led to the resignation of the Public Health Director, Dr. Nicole Quick.

     Was that transparent and open?

. . .

Nicole Quick
     [The Covid-update press] conferences always start with Steel coming out and basically being granted a free campaign stump opportunity.
     In most cases, she leaves immediately and reporters are not allowed to ask any questions of her.

     In recent weeks, Steel’s remarks haven’t even centered on Covid but instead focused on her resolutions regarding public safety appreciation.

     After Steel’s stump speech, technocrats – like Health Care Agency Director Clayton Chau – offer some general announcements on hot topics of the day.

     Complex issues – like Covid testing efforts, contact tracing and sheltering in urban environments, hospitalization numbers – are all covered in just a few minutes.

     Then, reporters – usually numbering about a dozen – get one question each with no follow ups.

     When we ask questions about complexities, we get general answers.

     Even more insulting is when Chau or Kim ask reporters to follow up with county Public Information officers that in many cases don’t return calls for days or in some cases at all.

     Keep in mind that virtually every public health order that the County of Orange has issued – about the March shutdown, about the Memorial Day reopening, about masks – all have been rolled out to huge confusion and in just about every case had to be re-written and re-issued.

     Data reporting on Covid – despite fancy press releases from the county about their new website, months into the crisis – is often times not reliable and again, there’s virtually no public information effort to back it up. State data and county data often tell a totally different story on any given day.

     As reporters, we are constantly getting emails from residents and taxpayers bewildered by the constant problems and inconsistencies in the county published data.

     Reporters also were among the first to publicly call on the county to release infection data by city – a crucial piece of data people wanted to see.

     Until public pressure and media attention mounted, Kim admitted that he kept those numbers from the public after being pressed by city managers to keep it secret.

     Is that transparent and open?

. . .

     Lastly, let’s talk restaurants.

     During Kim’s presentation last week, he told reporters the OC approach to restaurant inspections regarding Covid was focused more on engagement and education rather than hard enforcement.

     Fair enough.

     Yet I keep reading about restaurants having Covid-related closures (kudos to the OC Register’s Anne Valdespino for her solid coverage of the restaurant outbreaks).

     At last week’s press conference, I asked Kim if he could show taxpayers how HCA is doing that kind of vibrant restaurant outreach meant to protect consumers.

     I asked for details like how many pamphlets have been passed out, how many restaurant owners have been contacted, what kinds of resources are most requested by restaurants who need help?

     I was told there would be follow up.

     I am still waiting.

     Based on the agenda circulated yesterday for today’s press conference, the answers will apparently be presented at today’s public press conference, this week scheduled for 1 p.m. on the County Facebook page.

     A week to get basic stats on restaurant inspection outreach – in the midst of Covid outbreaks at restaurants.

     Is that transparent and open?

Trumpians

✅ OC Judge Allows Lawsuit Against Orange County Public Comment Policies to Move Forward
Voice of OC

     A lawsuit alleging Orange County supervisors have unconstitutionally restricted public comments got the green light to move forward Wednesday, after a Superior Court judge rejected a county legal motion that argued there were no legal grounds for the complaint.

     In her new ruling – in an updated case by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – OC Superior Court Judge Sheila B. Fell found the plaintiffs “alleged sufficient facts” to show that restrictions on speech at supervisors’ meetings must “be reasonable and viewpoint neutral.”
     “The lack of any guidance or standard for the Chair to decide whether to grant permission renders the [speaking] Rule unreasonable and, as such, unconstitutional,” Fell ruled on Wednesday.

     The ruling allows the lawsuit to move closer to an evidence-gathering phase, and a possible trial next year.

     [Click here to read the ruling.]

     The case was brought by the ACLU on behalf of a group of homeless advocates, the People’s Homeless Task Force, who often criticize supervisors during public comments at the supervisors meetings. Among other things, the lawsuit alleges supervisors enforce speaking time limits more strictly against people who criticize them.
     At one meeting in 2017, Supervisor Michelle Steel, in her first meeting as chairwoman of the board, let some corporate executives talk for about twice as long as the time limits she enforced against homeless advocates and county workers.

. . .

     The ACLU’s lead attorney in the case said the ruling clearly bolsters their point that the County of Orange rules for public comment violate free speech rights. 

     “We’re very pleased that the court denied the county’s motion,” said Peter Eliasberg, chief counsel with the ACLU of Southern California.
     “We think that this gives us an opportunity to go forward and further develop the work and further show that a variety of the county’s policies really are not compatible with their obligations with respect to public transparency and public access to government through the Brown Act,” he added, referring to the California law that requires open and equal access to meetings of local elected officials.

     “We’re confident that the court will see it our way and that we’ll get rulings that some, if not all, of the policies that we’re currently challenging violate the law.”….

See County data
In other news: (From Rough&Tumble)

✅Raucous parties, young adults fueling California’s COVID-19 crisis -- Younger adults are fueling California’s coronavirus pandemic like never before, health officials are warning, and massive parties and other large social gatherings are threatening to unravel the progress the state is making. Rong-Gong Lin II in the Los Angeles Times$ -- 8/6/20

A mask in every mailbox? California Democrats up pressure campaign in Congress -- California Democrats in Congress are increasing pressure on their leaders to get all Americans to wear masks to fight the coronavirus pandemic — including by mailing them to every household. Tal Kopan in the San Francisco Chronicle$ -- 8/6/20

Newsom searches for messaging rhythm as coronavirus fatigue sets in -- The state remains in a holding pattern. Indoor restaurant dining, bars and gyms have been closed for weeks. Most schools are planning to start with full distance learning. Debra Kahn and Carla Marinucci Politico -- 8/6/20

'Back to feeling blind': What we know about California's missing COVID data -- A major reporting issue with California's coronavirus data means state and county health officials no longer have a clear idea of how the state's cases are trending. For days, California hasn't received full counts on the number of tests conducted nor the number that came back positive for COVID-19, Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly said Tuesday. Katie Dowd in the San Francisco Chronicle Colleen Shalby in the Los Angeles Times$ Fiona Kelliher, Evan Webeck in the San Jose Mercury$ Amy Taxin Associated Press -- 8/6/20

Politicizing COVID: Poll finds big gaps between Trump and Biden voters in support for reopening schools, masks -- Found 80 percent of Biden voters thought the state moved too quickly to reopen businesses, while 79 percent of Trump supporters thought the opposite. Nico Savidge in the San Jose Mercury$ -- 8/6/20

Another college announces it’s going online this fall: Santa Clara University -- Santa Clara University will go online for the fall quarter, the Jesuit school announced Wednesday, joining a majority of Bay Area campuses that will be mostly virtual the rest of this year. Emily DeRuy in the San Jose Mercury$ -- 8/6/20

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Board of Supervisors reminds me a bit of our board. They're not used to public scrutiny and act as if they are above it. They forget that they are public servants and that employees are voting members of the public.

Roy Bauer said...

Years ago, the SOCCCD board would argue that, exactly because they are duly elected by the people, they may do what they please, pesky regulations (such as the Brown Act) to the contrary notwithstanding. That is, that they were elected, and thus the people's reps, trumped everything.

Bob said...

Having been a Saddleback Academic Senate President in the 90s when the Brown Act came about, I (and our Senate) and the IVC Academic Senate President (Kate) and her Senate sued the South Orange County Board of Trustees twice because of violations of the Brown Act in closed session. We prevailed in both suits. Let us hope this will occur in Orange County.

Roy Bauer said...

Yep, starting in 1997, Wendy G and I sued the board over Brown Act violations as well (twice). We prevailed. I'm pretty sure that Don Wagner was on the SOCCCD board when (essentially) they lost the appeal(s).

Bob said...

Wagner was on board, Roy. Too bad he didn't have to pay for the costs of the court.

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...