AtPac Updates

As you may know I have been conducting an investigation into the actual cost to the County of the AtPac settlement.  This investigation is not only directed at ascertaining the cost or an approximation of the cost but also an attempt to determine how that cost could have been, or can be determined, and of course with that, whether or not it could be determined, prior to the settlement, at the time of the settlement, or after the settlement was made.  At this time my investigation has amounted to seven letters containing 4,400 words, and two face-to-face meeting with County staff.

I am continuing my investigation but it is appropriate that I relate some of the information I have obtained to this point.  Some of this information may have already been disclosed and some of this information is not pertinent to my inquiry.

The fact the settlement was in excess of one million dollars it automatically triggered an additional $60,000 in premium.  I have not yet determined if this additional $60,000 is a onetime occurrence or if it is reoccurring for any period of years.

The total cost of the settlement was $1.9 million to AtPac and $775,000 in legal fees.  The County paid that amount and was reimbursed by EIA for $2.575 million.

It was EIA that made the offer of $1.9 million in settlement.  That limited EIA's costs to $1.9 million had the County refused to settle.  It was for that reason the County agreed to settle.

The County's case was based on, and contingent on, an in dependent forensic evaluation of the data that Aptitude manipulated.  This forensic evaluation was expected to illustrate that AtPac incurred no damage.  Because this information does not actual pertain to my investigation I did not attempt to determine why it was believed that this would absolve the County.  This forensic evaluation was never accomplished or completed due to litigious obstruction tactics employed by the plaintiff's attorneys.

The legal costs were around $5,000 to $10,000 a month until April of 2011.  It was at that point the costs started escalating to the $100,000 per month range.  That was then that EIA became involved.

Does Nevada County Want You to Know? AtPac

The County's announcement of settlement in the AtPac Case was quoted by The Union as stating:

"With resulting insurance coverage, the County's total economic exposure is limited to the County's self insured retention of $100k."

Supervisor Scofield was quoted by KNCO as saying :

"there is a possibility that the county's insurance rates will go up, but by how much is not known at this time."

This is an exact reproduction of what is stated in the County's CSAC Excess Insurance Authority summary of the General Liability I Program for the period that the County's Risk Manager considers applicable to the AtPac case, from the Conditions section headed 1. Premium:

The premium designated in the Declarations as "risk premium" is a deposit premium only, and shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the provisions for "risk premium adjustments" as adopted by the board of directors of the Authority.

The County's risk manager Peter Cheney insists that there is no document in existence that provides any information that would assist anyone in ascertaining the approximate impact that the AtPac claim settlement might have on the County's future premiums.

Please remember, this so called insurance policy is in fact a pool consisting of all the entities that are members, controlled, structured and administered, by the members. I was told by Mr. Cheney the he is a proxy voter of the board.

Question: Does any of this information raise any questions to anyone just now becoming aware of this information?

Stan Meckler and Barry Pruett Right on Target

I commented on Barry Pruett's "Nevada County Cover-up - Stan Meckler" post but Barry has declined to post the my comment so I will attempt to recreate it here. I guess I will need to keep copies of all comments I make at least until they are posted by the administrators.

What I had indicated was that Barry's suspicions about the actual costs were, as I had described, "right on target". In a nut shell what I suspect is that this liability policy that the County shares with other Counties may not be your "standard" insurance policy. Instead, because it is some kind of cooperation between Counties to pool funds, I am thinking it may also be designed to help cover up costs when the elected officials screw up. How this would work is that any particular County's premium could be derived from the effect the claims of that County has on the pool. This would result in the actual cost of this scandal being over $1 or $2 mil perhaps spread over a few years. A type of legal money laundering designed to keep you fat and happy. My next plan is to go in and try to get a copy of this document. Now as I said in my previous post, you cannot FOIA records from closed session but this document you certainly could FOIA if they refuse to pony it up. You may even be able to get a copy form one of the other Counties much easier. I won't be able to attend to this until next week. Ted?

The bottom line here is, Stan and Barry are correct. This is a cover-up. They think they are safe because of the Brown Act and closed session. I say recall the whole lot and then I bet they will start singing.

Union's AtPac FOIA Futile

With regard to the filling of an FOIA by The Union concerning the AtPac issue I would like to share some thoughts with you.
I did little investigation on this a few weeks ago when there was discussion on the blogs about culpability and leadership. This investigation started with me paying a visit to the Clerk of the Board. When asking if any tapes or other records where taken during closed session I was told that no tapes were made nor were any minutes taken. I was told by the Clerk that she only took notes when there was an action taken. The Clerk told me everything was done according to The Brown Act. I was advised to refer to The Brown Act to determine what procedures would be followed with regard to records. Having previously been subject to the restraints of this law, but not with regard to closed session, I did investigate what The Brown Act requires and restricts in closed session.
As you probably know, the intention The Brown Act is to further protect the public from so-called back-room-deals in that it requires more openness in the governing process. Knowing that, one would expect The Brown Act to provide access to and provision for records documenting any process involving elected officials influence of and discussions during actions that have effects on the electorate. In most cases this is the fact. But when one considers closed session one must also take into consideration that this usually involves attorneys. Considering this coupled with the fact that it was attorneys that wrote The Brown Act it should not come to anyone as a surprise that when it comes between the public and attorneys it is the attorneys that The Brown Act protects and this is at the expense of the public.
You see The Brown Act does not require any documentation of proceeding in closed session. It allows for a minute book but only by ordinance or resolution and this minute book may or may not include a recording. Remember, I was told by the Clerk that no minutes are kept, only notes by her when an action is taken by the Board. Now even though a minute book or recording may be used nether of these are public records subject to inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act. In fact, the only way they can be disclosed is by court order and that court order can only be issued for purposes relating to a violation of The Brown Act that has occurred during the particular meeting that the record being referred to was made. And it is only that court that gets access to those records for the purpose of determining if there is reason to believe a violation of the Act has taken place. This specifically precludes disclosing any closed meeting records for the purpose of deterring any elected official's or employee's influence on any action.
The bottom line here is, I don't think The Union will be getting very far with their FOIA request. In fact, because The Brown Act makes it a crime for anyone with knowledge about proceedings in closed session to disclose information about those closed sessions The Brown Act will prohibit the public from being given the information they need to ascertain the performance and integrity of their elected officials.
I guess the only recourse will be to hold them ALL responsible. This isn't inappropriate or uncalled for when you consider that if there had been even ONE Leader in the group to start with, he, or she, would have stood up, removed himself, or herself, from what was going on and therefore but an end to the madness.