Indians Clean House

The Osage Tribe of Oklahoma has won a settlement against the United States in the sum of $380,000,000!   That's on top of their 2006 and 2010 combined win of $331,000,000!! 

$711,000,000

What happend?  According to the Department of Justice press release below, they worked out their differences...

__________________________________

PRESS RELEASE - Dept. of Justice

__________________________________

United States and Osage Tribe Announce $380 Million Settlement of Tribal Trust Lawsuit

Friday, October 21, 2011

WASHINGTON – The United States has reached a final settlement of a long-running lawsuit by the Osage Tribe of Oklahoma regarding the United States’ accounting and management of the tribe’s trust funds and non-monetary trust assets.  Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division; the Interior Department’s Deputy Secretary David J. Hayes, Solicitor Hilary C. Tompkins, and Bureau of Indian Affairs Director Michael S. Black; the Treasury Department’s General Counsel George W. Madison, and the Osage Tribe’s Principal Chief John Red Eagle and other tribal officials commemorated the settlement during a ceremony at the Department of Interior’s headquarters in Washington today.

“This historic settlement resolves with finality long-standing trust accounting and trust management claims by the Osage Tribe,” said Assistant Attorney General Moreno.   “This settlement is the outcome of dedicated efforts by the United States and the Osage Tribe to resolve years of costly and protracted litigation.   Today, we come together in the spirit of partnership and mutual respect to recognize an important milestone on a path to a future marked by a stronger government-to-government and trust relationship. This settlement demonstrates the United States’ strong commitment to resolving pending tribal trust accounting and trust management cases in an expedited, fair and just manner.”

“Reaching a final settlement with the Osage Tribe has been a priority for this Administration, and it demonstrates President Obama's commitment to reconciliation and empowerment for American Indian nations,” said Interior’s Deputy Secretary Hayes.  “The settlement process was fundamental to respecting the government-to-government relationship between the U.S. government and the Osage Tribe. This agreement marks a new beginning – one of just reconciliation, better communication and strengthened management of tribal trust assets.”

“This settlement is an historic, positive development for Indian country and a major step on the road to reconciliation following years of litigation between the Osage Tribe and the United States,” said Interior Solicitor Tompkins. “This administration has worked in good faith to reach a settlement that is both honorable and responsible.  The settlement will allow the United States and the Tribe to foster, cultivate and strengthen their trust relationship as they move together into the future.”

Under the negotiated agreement, executed on Oct. 14, 2011, litigation will end regarding the Department of the Interior’s accounting and management of the tribe’s trust accounts, trust lands and other natural resources, including the tribe’s mineral estate.   The United States will pay the tribe $380 million to compensate the tribe for its claims of historical losses to its trust funds and interest income as a result of the government’s management of trust assets.   The parties also will implement measures that will lead to strengthened management of the tribe’s trust assets and improved communications between the Department of the Interior and the tribe, including procedures for delivery of periodic statements of account, annual audit information, and information relating to the management of the mineral estate to the tribe.    Importantly, the agreement also provides dispute resolution provisions to reduce the likelihood of future litigation.

The Osage Tribe brought its trust accounting and trust management lawsuits in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC) in 1999 and 2000.   Also, the tribe brought a trust accounting case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2004 and dismissed that case in 2010.   The CFC litigation included numerous motions, extensive discovery, many rulings, and two trials over 12 years.   Between 2006 and 2010, the tribe obtained two judgments from the CFC against the United States for about $331 million on various claims spanning the 1972-2000 period.   A trial on significant claims remaining in this case was scheduled to begin in February 2012.  

Recreational Fishing Industry Wins Battle

San Diego - Yesterday the California Fish and Game Commission heard a proposal to change rules that would have been so costly to implement and enforce that all of the privately owned and operated hatcheries in California would have had to close down. 

 

In the midst of the worst unemployment crisis since the 1930s, this big win for the recreational fishing industry has saved thousands of jobs.

 

An intriguing report about the decision and some of the issue's background can be found HERE. One excerpt I want to share is the cost analysis.

As expected, Fish and Game showed the cost to be in the hundreds of dollars, while the representatives of the fisheries and hatcheries said the cost will be, on average, around $133,000.

Dixon Lake in Escondido was one of the four lakes studied for cost by the independent Sapphos Environmental, Inc., and Dixon came in at $181,000 for the biological assessment to keep stocking fish. The breakdown was $25,919 for fish assessment, $15,490.74 for birds, $139,677.06 for herpetofauna.

Special thanks to Orange County's own State Senator Tom Harmon who began public comments by advocating for the small businesses that make up this large industry. 

 

California's Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts can once again count on their favorite fishing hole to be a round a little longer. 

Fullerton's Water Rep to Step Down



Jim Blake



Amid Fullerton’s water rate debacle the City’s representative on the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California announced Tuesday that he is stepping down.  After representing the City of Fullerton for 24 years on the MWD Board of Directors, Jim Blake says he is done.

It is rumored that Fullerton’s retired city manager Chris Meyer is looking to be appointed as Blake’s replacement but that will require a majority vote by the Fullerton City Council.   Since City Council Members Bankhead and Jones appointed Meyer as City Manager in 2002, there is little doubt that they wouldn't give him the MWD nod as well.



However, with Fullerton’s water rates under scrutiny and an illegal tax being batted about City Hall for justification, you have to wonder how much of the water mess can be attributed to Meyer- not to mention the rest of the City’s countless woes.

Chris Meyer

An appointment of Meyer to the MWD Board might bring further outcry to City Hall, something the new Mayor might wish to avoid. Since August the Council members have been cussed at, cursed at, sworn up and down, and yelled at.  They are now being held accountable for their general lack of leadership by a campaign to recall three members, Mayor Pro Tem Pat McKinley, and members Don Bankhead and F. Dick Jones. 

Many believe that the appointment should be filled by a current council member so that they can be held responsible by Fullerton voters for their actions on the Board.  Currently, Blake is answerable only to the Fullerton City Council. 

If the appointment is to be held by a non-council member, then the process should be open to ALL candidates equally like any other council appointment to a commission or committee.  

Whoever is appointed will be tasked with a massive budgetary shortfall that rivals Sacramento’s.  The appointee will be asked for double-digit rate hikes and even more spending.  They need to know the water industry and even more about public policy and long-term investment solutions.  They need to know Fullerton and not just through the myopic eyes of service clubs.

Fullerton deserves an accountable and credible representative on the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 

Tinkering with Water Rates

Water ratepayers in San Juan Capistrano are in for a rude awakening.  A new audit of the water system's financial mismanagement predates the 2003 merger of the Capistrano Valley Water District and the City of San Juan Capistrano by six years. 

You read that correctly.  For six straight years the Capistrano Valley Water District was consistently underfunded because of the rate structure.

The dirty laundry is being aired on the pages of the OC Register and after several massive rate hikes (22% in February and 18% more in July) which the audit says aren't sufficient to cover the deficit.

According to  the Register, the audit states that the utility "also used one-time revenue from property taxes and developer fees as a stopgap funding measure, which had the effect of hiding structural funding problems."

The report indicates "poor financial communication" may have been part of the problem.

Let's head up Interstate-5 to Fullerton and look at the similarities.

Fullerton hasn't had an audit but it did have a rate study.  The rate study appears to have been nothing more than a report to justify nearly doubling water rates.  When pressed for hard data and answers on the water system's "in-lieu franchise fee" (an illegal 10% tax on the Water Fund), staff came up empty-handed.

Fullerton has been under-funding the water system since the 1960s.  Some might rightfully ask how that is possible and why.  Good questions, to be sure.  It was in the 1960s that the "in-lieu franchise fee" was put in place by a city council that actually predates Don Bankhead's tenure on the dais.  Since then, 10% of every dollar paid into the Water Fund has been skimmed and deposited into the City's General Operating Fund like a 3-year old grabbing at a cookie. 

That may not seem like a big deal but with every rate hike, the City's General Fund wins big.  Not to mention nearly 80% of the General Fund covers the benefits and salaries of employees not associated with operating or managing the water system.  It also helps to shore up the growing deficit and pension shortfall.  How is that fair?  How is that even legal?  It's not legal.  This January you'll begin to see a more vigorous campaign headed by City staff to raise rates and justify the continued skimming of the Water Fund.

The illegal "water tax" imposed on the Water Fund has reinforced the policy and subsequent affect on our infrastructure with ZERO investment.  Now, after 50 years of ignoring the problem, pillaging the coffers, and looking the other way, rate payers will be forced to pick up the tab.

Maybe I can blame my parents.  Perhaps Mom and Dad should have been banging on the doors at City Hall in the 1960s and '70s telling the City Council and City Manager to invest in the water system.  But they didn't protest City Hall, probably because they were busy raising five kids, paying a mortgage, and worried about their kids heading off to fight questionable wars in far away places.

No, I can't blame them. Like most people, they relied on their elected representatives to do the right thing.

To those who were voters in the 1960s, '70s, '80s, and '90s...here I am holding the bag.  How much is it going to cost, you ask, to make up for years of mismanagement and neglect? 

About $300-million... 

State Controller Releases More Payroll and Pension Data for Public Employees

SACRAMENTO – State Controller John Chiang today updated his website showing the salary, pension benefits and other compensation for 674,000 city and county employees in calendar year 2010.
Today's posting includes wages and other forms of compensation worth $38.8 billion.  Four counties and 37 cities did not file in time for this website update
"Holding public officials accountable for how they manage public dollars relies heavily on transparency," said Chiang. "The struggles of the City of Bell remind us that corruption and fiscal mismanagement are often the byproducts of keeping the public in the dark."
The site was originally created by Controller Chiang in late 2010, after he ordered local governments to provide salary and other wage information for their employees to his office.  In October 2010, the Controller collected and posted 2009 wage information for more than 600,000 city and county employees.  He then added 2009 information for the employees from 2,379 special districts.  In June, he added 2010 compensation information for 256,222 employees from the State of California and 123,406 from the California State University System (CSU).
The data postings drew heavy internet traffic, and the site has logged nearly 5.3 million page views since October 2010.
The website covers elected officials as well as public employees.  It includes the following information for each position:

·       Minimum and maximum salary ranges;

·       Actual wages paid;

·       The applicable retirement formula;

·       Any contributions by the employer to the employee’s share of pension costs;

·       Any contributions by the employer to the employee’s deferred compensation plan; and

·       Any employer payments for the employee’s health, vision and dental premium benefits.

In addition, the website shows employees who hold multiple positions within either State government or the CSU system. The Controller continues to update and expand the site to include more public-sector data.  2010 compensation information for special districts, and 2011 information for State and CSU employees will be phased in over the next six months.
In August, the Controller and Community College Chancellor Jack Scott wrote to all 72 districts across the State, requesting they also submit their payroll data by early 2012.
A list of agencies that failed to file payroll records with the State can also be found on this website.  Each non-complying agency could face a penalty of $5,000.  The Controller’s Office will continue to review and post the relevant data from these local governments as it is reported to the State.

Lack of Leadership and Responsibility

A year ago the City of Fullerton was poised to nearly double water rates in order to keep up with the cost of running a municipal water agency.  So what happened?  Public outcry and a serious legal question put the rate increase quietly on the back-burner and out of public debate, at least until now.

The thought of a double-digit rate increase brought the issue to the forefront of Fullertonians’ minds. 

The legal question was raised when the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association reviewed the City’s Water Fund franchise tax and pointed out that the blanket 10% fee that the City was skimming from the Fund was inconsistent with California ’s Proposition 218.  In essence, the City would skim 10% of the Water Fund’s $25-million and use it to back fill the City’s General Operating Fund, nearly 80% of which pays for benefits and salaries.  There was no justification for the tax, which was implemented in the 1960s, nor was there ever any accounting as to how the money would or should be used.

Typically, franchise fees or franchise taxes are levied by municipalities against other utility companies as an in-lieu fee for property taxes.  Think of it as the City renting out a strip of the city’s street for buried electrical line or cable TV line.  Fullerton ’s water utility is one and the same as the City of Fullerton . 

City staff have indicated that they are wrapping up a study to see just how much money they can justify taking from the Water Fund.  Under consideration is the City’s loss of property tax revenue and potential leasing fees for each of the City’s reservoirs.  This after-the-fact attempt to justify decades of skimming, now valued at $2.5-million per year and growing, is a slap in the face of rate payers.  The sting is particularly bad when one realizes that the other side of City Hall, our water utility has been unable or unwilling to provide detailed meter costs.   

The Fullerton City Council’s lack of leadership and clear direction has allowed City Hall to get by skimming the Water Fund and not having to articulating the true costs of operating, managing, and maintaining the City’s water system in a transparent and open manner.  This lack of leadership and accountability is just one more reason to consider recalling Dick Jones, Don Bankhead, and Pat McKinley.