CaliforniaFirst - Financing Efficiency/Solar

The Santa Cruz Sentinel published an article this past week about Santa Cruz County's plan to join a financing district. Here is my letter to the reporter, Kurtis Alexander.

Hi Kurtis:

cc: Allison Endert, Board of Supervisors

From what I know about municipal financed district for solar/energy efficiency is a good idea. Certainly has worked elsewhere.

Still, I have questions that neither the Board of Supervisors nor Commission on the Environment would answer.

I posted these questions on Sentinel website (http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_14003041) and below.

But (3) is a topic I have many concerns about, as you probably know. I'm afraid it's often a bit beyond my ability to discern which hat an individual is wearing at given moment. 45.1 51

[Full disclosure: I have sent the District Attorney two complaints re: COE about Brown Act, Conflicts-of-Interest].

I hope you'll report on the the contract for managing the energy efficiency/solar program and then monitor compliance. As I think we all agree, it is very important for the public to have all the information it needs to make decisions. Likewise, public and private interests must never be confused.

FYI, as you may know, the County spent 19 months with funding to do a mobile GHG emissions study and, from what people have told me, did "nothing." Ecology Action is on that contract. I have asked the County how many other contracts are "languishing." This is another area I hope you will consider writing about.

I have gotten no answer from the Board of Supervisors.

==

All in favor of more solar, efficiency cost savings etc. but I hope to clarify some things in my mind:

(1) Market need?
Given the dropping solar panel prices, loans now on the market, the PG&E savings now, etc., how many ADDITIONAL homeowners be motivated to act? Has anyone estimated the EXTRA energy/electricity and CO2 reduction this program will achieve vs. with out it? (If so, I haven't seen.) Because I want to compare that to the cost to taxpayers.(i.e. cost/benefit)

(2) Efficiency 1st?
Before installing new hardware, how does this program ensure that homeowners do PG&E audits, "cool roofs", insulation, think efficiency - preferably, right now?

(3) Program Mgmt
Again, all in favor of jobs. But we also want to stimulate a new industry (renewables) and sustainable real job growth - not just rely on Government handouts.

I am curious about the final statement.
"Santa Cruz County-based Ecology Action is leading the statewide push for the money. Executive Director Virginia Johnson says the proposal is compelling and the chances are good."

Is private Ecology Action just being a good citizen cheerleader or have an undisclosed financial interest we should know about?

By the way, I did ask County's Commission on the Environment these questions, but never got an answer.

Brown Act, Conflicts - Filed Against County Environmental Commission

Press Release (11/12/09)

Brown Act, Conflicts Complaint Filed Against: Santa Cruz County - Commission on the Environment

For additional information:
Jim Rothstein
831-824-4304
jimrothstein@gmail.com

Today an environmental citizen filed a complaint against Santa Cruz County's Commission on the Environment (COE), alleging violations of the California Brown Act (open meetings and documents) and County's Conflict-of-Interest Laws. In accordance with the Brown Act, the filing was submitted to the County District Attorney office for review and possible civil and criminal action.

"All citizens deserve timely information about the latest science and policy alternatives in regard to the environment and climate change, free from any conflict of interests" said Jim Rothstein who filed the complaint on behalf of Santa Cruz County citizens. Several of the Commissions have a funding relationship with local government, or wish to.

"On the surface, the [COE's] meetings seem to be open, even polite, but as soon as you ask to read the documents, seek data or ask to attend a working group an invisible wall goes up, for example they'll say meetings listed on the agenda are private 'internal staff planning meetings' " he added. "They hadn't even updated the agenda or minutes in the 5 months before I called about an August 26 meeting." "Several times the Chair would tell me I have 'good questions' and they'll answer it in a future document, but refuse to give a release date. Another time I asked the same question at two meetings; only to told each time it would answered at the next meeting - but it wasn't. When I asked what COE to do in preparation for UN's Copenhagen Conference they made a joke out it before answering 'no plans.' This is all a disservice to the public which empowers the COE."

The Brown Act was originally enacted in 1953 and has been updated since. It places the burden on government to prove why a meeting must be shielded from public participation. Like all laws, enforcement is the key.

The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

The District Attorney's office receives 5-10 Brown Act complaints each year and decides which to pursue. But, Robin Giysin, the DA Civil Affairs coordinator said "We've never filed a Brown Act suit."

Acknowledging this, Rothstein said "The Board of Supervisors created this Commission and ultimately they are responsible; I've told them about the problems." Rothstein said his original intent in attending COE meetings was to "do something" about climate change and environment. He wasn't surprised to learn the COE felt exempt from County's conflict-of-interest rules, but stunned that they'd actually admit it. He hopes the COE will be able to focus on public service, but he wants to return to working on environmental issues and policy. He feels the County needs a strong independent group, based on science and community, to provide policy guidance. "We have wonderful scientific organizations in this County; we need to listen and act accordingly."

The Commission on the Environment meets monthly and the public may attend. The Chair is Virginia Johnson, CEO of Ecology Action. COE staff is Nancy Gordon, a senior level staff member with Santa Cruz County.

---

---

More on Brown Act and Santa Cruz County Codes:

• Brown Act (also Wikipdedia and this excellent 2003 guide Calif Attorney General's office), also Santa Cruz County 23.8 or Chapter 2.54 COMMISSION ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Santa Cruz Commission on Environment, Brown Act

I have attended meetings of the Santa Cruz County Commission on the Environment and have had several emails with the staff. The Environment, of course, is a vitally important subject and the public needs to be both informed and engaged.

However, I have found the workings of this Commission opaque, as well as falling short in several areas related to content, speed, possible conflicts, engagement of the public.

California has the Brown Act to make meetings open. I have notified my Supervisor (Coonerty) that though I am not a lawyer it seems quite clear to me the SCC Commission on the Environment has been operating in violation of the letter and spirit of Brown Act.

I like this part of the Act:

54950
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the
agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

Here is related information in Santa Cruz County code, section 2.38.

Finally, here is the "demand letter" I sent:
(Also my September 25, 2009 letter)
==

November 4, 2009

Dear Nancy Gordon:

cc: Allison Endert (Supervisor Coonerty's Office)

Under 54960.1 of the Brown Act and Santa Cruz County 2.38.130, 2.38.230, 2.38.270 Chapter 2.54 plus other appropriate laws, do here and in all prior oral/electronic/written communication since August 2009 demand of the Santa Cruz County Commission on Environment:

• full disclosure and transparency of all COE activities
• public access and participation in all COE activities, including subcommittees, task forces, working groups etc.
• conflict of interest policy and personal statements (section 2.38.270)
• bylaws and resolutions authorizating subcommittees (section 2.38.130 B, 2.38.230 A)
• correction of inaccurate minutes and omissions
  
• make public: all work-in-progress, all data, all draft reports, all electronic or email correspondence; all consultant reports or drafts, all ICLEI reports or drafts, etc.
• all other information necessary for the Board of Supervisors and citizens of Santa Cruz County be fully and timely informed the issues covered in your subject area ..."...such as energy, environmental health, business, climate change, ecological science, education, housing development, transportation, agriculture, water, biotic resources, land use planning"

I am not a lawyer. The citizens of this county need to be informed on the issues, risks, facts, related to the environment, especially reducing green house gases and reducing energy consumption. Nothing less than full disclosure, transparency, and public engagement is acceptable.

Jim Rothstein

831-824-4304
==