Some of the people who attended.

Attendees
5 Commissioners

Steven Miller Hanson Bridgett LLC
Glenn Lazof Interim General Manager
San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley and 2 staff members.
Staff Chris Hunter
Staff Nicholas Calderon
Mark Simon SamTrans/Caltrain PENTV former political reporter SF Chronicle 30yrs experience
Bill Silverfarb reporter for San Mateo Daily journal
SMC Sheriff Deputy Doug in business suit

2 SSF Police Officers in uniform

James Han Lee
Mark DePaula
Michael Stogner
John Ullom
Dan Ullom

Kathryn Slater-Carter, Montara Water District
Dr. Mary Larenas speaking for Ed Larenas
Pamela Fisher of Advocates For Open Government (AFOG)
Shaunn Cartwright of the National Women's Political Caucus (NWPC)
Tom Linebarger, retired, Redwood City
April Vargas
Leonard Woren, El Granada Sanitary District
Bill Kehoe, Midcoast Community Council
James Lee Han, Redwood City
Jeff Clark(e), Titans of Mavericks

Here is SMDJ seasoned reporter Bill Silverfarb article of the meeting, describing the above incident, check out how many words he gives to the theft, or the Startling order from a police officer……..Zero

Web Link

Michael:

you can bet the police didn't do that on their own. They were directed by someone to do it. Who is the most likely person there to have given such an order?

Menlo Voter very good point.

A little History here Sabrina Brennan as a concerned citizen not an elected official forced San Mateo County to record/video the Charter Review Committee Meetings for the public in 2010. It took her two or three times before they did it.

The Ullom Brothers owners of Citizen Access TV volunteered to record/video/broadcast the Harbor District Meetings when the Commissioners voted to stop funding the video/recording. They have been doing it for FREE and Broadcasting live.

Questions:

1. Why was SSF PD at the meeting?

2. Were the thieves employed by the club where the meetings are held?

3. Was Ullom given the option to file a police report re the theft of the device and the refusal of the bar people to return it?

4. What is the law re live streaming the meeting? Isn't it allowed for public meetings to be recorded by various parties?

Thanks in advance, if anyone had the time to answer.

At 53:24 in this video is the 10 minute break that President Sabrina Brennan called for, John Ullom just came and got me to join him to make his first public report to Sabrina, Steven Miller, and Glenn Lazof. The video starts again at 53:54 but there was at least a 10 minute break between 53:24 and 53:54 At 59:20 John Ullom has his public comments
Web Link

Water asks great questions

1. Why was SSF PD at the meeting? Don't know yet, will ask the Chief this Wednesday. There was also a SMC Sheriff Deputy there.

2. Were the thieves employed by the club where the meetings are held? Don't know yet, I don't think anybody has been asked any questions yet by the police.

3. Was Ullom given the option to file a police report re the theft of the device and the refusal of the bar people to return it? NO not at all, and nobody from the police department has asked him one question.

4. What is the law re live streaming the meeting? Isn't it allowed for public meetings to be recorded by various parties? I will leave the law question to somebody else, I do know that Citizen Access TV has been Broadcasting Live for the Harbor District before and they were completely set up and tested long before the meeting started so it wasn't a matter of noise or disturbance to the Commissioner. The device was duct tapped to the window.

Sounds to me like a commissioner or manager or both didn't want the meeting recorded.

Menlo Voter says "Sounds to me like a commissioner or manager or both didn't want the meeting recorded."

By the Ullom brothers aka Citizen Access TV that is for sure.

Nobody messed with the Pacific Coast TV guy or his equipment while he recorded the meeting.

What does this have to do with the Almanac's coverage area? South San Francisco is a long way from Menlo Park and Atherton.

odd:

in case you haven't noticed, The Almanac's coverage area is in San Mateo County. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but we live in what has to be the most corrupt county in the area. I'm thankful anytime anyone brings this type of issue to the fore. the people of this county need to wake up and pay attention to the corruptocrats they have foolishly elected. they may not care right now, but when it comes time for their ox to be gored they certainly will.

The Harbor District is of interest to all San Mateo County taxpayers.
The appearance of Supervisor Don Horsley and two of his staff should be no surprise. Horsley is a Commissioner of the Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCo).

Excerpts from May 29, 2015 LAFCo Draft Municipal Service Review and Sphere Update the San Mateo County Harbor District

This report provides a fiscal analysis, municipal service review (MSR) and sphere of influence (SOI) update for the San Mateo County Harbor District (SMCHD). The prior MSR, prepared in 2006, encouraged the SMCHD to reduce its operating shortfalls, and to develop policies to constrain debt service. The accompanying 2006 SOI report reaffirmed the SMCHD’s zero SOI
indicating the District should be dissolved with the County as successor agency to facilities and revenues. Subsequent to the 2006 MSR, the 2013-14 San Mateo Civil Grand Jury investigated the SMCHD and detailed its findings in the report entitled: “What is the Price of Dysfunction? The San Mateo County Harbor District.” Of the many recommendations, the Grand Jury recommended that LAFCo initiate a municipal service review and sphere update. This MSR reviews SMCHD progress addressing issues and recommendations of the Grand Jury, and evaluates other services and governance issues required by an MSR.

In 1977, San Mateo LAFCo adopted a zero sphere of influence for the District indicating that it should be dissolved and service could be assumed by the County. Subsequently several efforts to either detach portions of the county from the District or dissolve it ended with court challenge, denial at protest hearing, failure at election and most recently in 1991, withdrawal of the application. LAFCo has periodically reviewed and reaffirmed the sphere of influence, most recently in 2006.

The longstanding LAFCo-adopted SOI for the Harbor District indicates that it be dissolved and the County of San Mateo be established as successor agency to assume service and be successor to all revenues, assets and liabilities. It is important to note that an SOI is regulatory in that a
change of organization of any special district must be consistent with the District’s SOI. However, implementation of the SOI requires that an affected agency take action by applying to LAFCo for that change of organization. In the case of the Harbor District the District itself, the County, or any city, district or school district could apply to LAFCo to implement the sphere. In addition, applications can be submitted by 25 percent of the registered voters or landowners in District boundaries.

Who will move for implementation of the dissolution process for this dysfunctional and redundant agency?

That LAFCo document also referenced the action taken at the SMCHD meeting which is the subject of this topic.

Excerpt:6UGJ2
On April 1, 2015 the SMCHD directors participated in a Board Dynamics Workshop to improve intra-board working relationships in response to the 2013-14 Civil Grand Jury Report that was critical of the behavior of Harbor Commissioners at Commission meetings. The workshop resulted in the Harbor Commission developing a “List of Norms” adopted on the Consent Calendar at the April 15, 2015 meeting , included as Appendix D to this MSR.30
Recent events raise serious concerns about adherence to the “Best Practices” and “List of Norms” described above. A memorandum from the SMCHD Interim General Manager to the SMCHD Commission stated that the Commission President made threatening comments to him when discussing the status of an upcoming meeting agenda in an effort to influence public policy “in a manner inconsistent with the Brown Act, transparency, and good public policy”. In response, the Harbor Commission reorganized the Harbor Commission officers midyear.

The following e-mail exchange with Supervisor(and LAFCo Commissioner) Don Horsley is at the heart of the problem which is faced by those who would dissolve or reorganize Special Districts. Dons response was in reference to my efforts regarding the two Healthcare districts in San Mateo County.

From: Don Horsley
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 1:14 PM
To: SHD Director Jack Hickey
Subject: Re: Ravenswood Family Health Center

It is extremely difficult if not impossible to expand, or dissolve or consolidate the HCDs.

Don, I presented this Resolution to the BOS on September 9, 2014. It is within the power of the Legislature to make this happen.

Honorable members of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, I am Jack Hickey.

I have prepared the following resolution for submission to the State Legislature. I ask that you consider it’s adoption at your next meeting.

Whereas: San Mateo County’s two Hospital Districts no longer own hospitals; and,

Whereas: Property taxes assessed by these districts, for the purpose of acquiring and sustaining hospitals, continue to be collected as a share of the 1% ad valorem tax; and,



Whereas: The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury questioned the Sequoia Healthcare District's use of these taxes for philanthropic purposes never intended by voters; and,



Whereas: The 2005 Civil Grand Jury said the Sequoia Healthcare District should “Immediately pursue with the Peninsula Healthcare District the merging of the two agencies…structured to serve the healthcare needs of the entire County.”



Whereas: In 2007, LAFCo adopted a "transitional sphere of influence with the potential for expansion to include excluded areas, dissolution and consolidation" for the Sequoia and Peninsula Healthcare Districts; and,



Whereas: Countywide school district funding is unbalanced by local healthcare district subsidies derived from 1% ad valorem taxes. Remedies under Serrano Priest could be sought by affected school districts; and,



Whereas: LAFCo options of countywide expansion or dissolution of the districts would remedy that inequality;



Therefore: The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors hereby petitions the Legislature to enact legislation allowing San Mateo County to place a measure on the ballot calling for consolidation of the Sequoia and Peninsula Healthcare Districts into a countywide Healthcare District funded by a share of the 1% ad valorem countywide property taxes at the same rate currently assessed by the existing districts. Such legislation must provide that failure of the measure to gain a simple majority of county voters would result in the dissolution of the existing districts.

LAFCo esponse to Continuity Committee of the SMC Civil Grand Jury re: SMCHD

Web Link

Update I have asked all 5 Commissioners if they requested Police Presence at that meeting, all 5 answered NO.
I asked San Mateo County Sheriff Office if Deputy Doug Jukich was there on Sheriff duty because he was in a business suit. The answer was Yes he was on duty. That brings up several questions,

Who asked the Sheriff Office to supply a deputy to attend a Harbor District public meeting in SSF Police Departments jurisdiction?

Who authorized him to go?

What is that assignment called?

Why did he not Interview John Ullom after he heard about the two crimes, Theft and Order.

Why did he not interview the SSFPD Officer who gave the order?

GC11124.1
(c) No state body shall prohibit or otherwise restrict the
broadcast of its open and public meetings in the absence of a
reasonable finding that the broadcast cannot be accomplished without noise, illumination, or obstruction of view that would constitute a persistent disruption of the proceedings.

Good questions, Michael. Don't stop till you get answers. Maybe the media will help.

I just found out today why an undercover SMC Sheriff Deputy attended the meeting.

Michael,

The legislative aide for Supervisor Horsley's office requested security for the Supervisor, and as such, the Sheriff's Office provided security to protect the Supervisor, not to take part in dealing, or interfering, with the public. Also, in regard to your question on the deputy's attire, the deputy detailed to the event was in plain clothe in order to avoid drawing attention to himself or his detail.

Rebecca Rosenblatt