Assemblymember Chris Norby Speaks

Thursday, February 23

The California Republican Assembly (CRA) of Fullerton is proud to welcome Assemblymember Chris Norby to the Sizzler in Fullerton (1401 N. Harbor Blvd.). 

Assemblymember Norby will be giving an insider's perspective and update on Sacramento.

The public is welcome to attend this FREE meeting. 

Dinner (optional, on your own) is at 6:15PM and Assemblymember Norby will begin speaking at 7PM. 

Please bring your questions about Sacramento, education, redevelopment, his voting record, or anything else on your mind. 

This is a great way to meet your neighbors and civic leaders.

Discussion is encouraged but not required.

California's cash deficit stands at $21.5 billion

PRESS RELEASE - CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG

SACRAMENTO – State Controller John Chiang today released his monthly report covering California's cash balance, receipts and disbursements in November, showing monthly revenues came in $497.7 million above projections in the state budget.
"While November's totals came in 9 percent above projections, they did not erase the fact that we are still running $1 billion behind in revenues and $2 billion ahead in expenditures," said Chiang.  "Regardless of whether midyear cuts are enacted next week, the Legislature faces a tremendous fiscal challenge when it returns to session next month."
After accounting for November revenues, total year-to-date general fund revenues are now behind the budget's estimates by $1 billion, but expenditures for the year are over projections by $1.95 billion.  The Controller's Office continues to work with the Department of Finance to identify and prepare for any impact on the State's cash outlook.
The State ended last fiscal year with a cash deficit of $8.2 billion. The combined current year cash deficit stands at $21.5 billion.  Those deficits are being covered with $16.1 billion of internal borrowing (temporary loans from special funds) and $5.4 billion of external borrowing.
For more details, read November 2011's financial statement and summary analysis.

September Tax Revenue Shows California $705.5-Million Behind Budget

From State Controller John Chiang

SACRAMENTO – State Controller John Chiang today released his monthly report covering California's cash balance, receipts and disbursements in September, showing revenues came in $301.6 million below projections from the recently passed state budget.  
"For better or worse, the potential for revenue shortfalls is precisely why the Governor and Legislature included trigger cuts in this year's State spending plan," said State Controller John Chiang.  "September's revenues alone do not guarantee that triggers will be pulled. But as the largest revenue month before December, these numbers do not paint a hopeful picture."
After accounting for September revenues, total year-to-date general fund revenues are now behind the budget's estimates by $705.5 million.
The State ended last fiscal year with a cash deficit of $8.2 billion. The combined current year cash deficit stands at $17.6 billion.  Those deficits are being covered with $12.2 billion of internal borrowing (temporary loans from special funds) and $5.4 billion of external borrowing.
For more details, read September 2011's financial statement and summary analysis.

State Controller Finds Budget Did Not Balance On Paper

SACRAMENTO – State Controller John Chiang today announced that his analysis of the State budget vetoed last week shows the spending plan was incomplete and unbalanced. His analysis sought to determine whether the budget met the requirements of Proposition 25 and Proposition 58, which forfeit Legislative pay if a balanced budget is not passed by June 15.

“My office’s careful review of the recently-passed budget found components that were miscalculated, miscounted or unfinished,” said Chiang. “The numbers simply did not add up, and the Legislature will forfeit their pay until a balanced budget is sent to the Governor.”

Proposition 25, titled the “On-Time Budget Act of 2010,” was approved by voters November 2, 2010. The initiative lowered the vote requirement for passing a budget from two-thirds to a simple majority without lowering the two-thirds vote required for tax increases. It also forfeits Legislators’ pay and living expenses incurred from June 16 until “the day that the budget bill is presented to the Governor.”

Nothing in the Constitution or state law gives the State Controller the authority to judge the honesty, legitimacy or viability of a budget. The Controller can only determine whether the expected revenues will equal or exceed planned expenditures in the budget, as required by Article 4, Section 12(g) of the Constitution: “. . .the Legislature may not send to the Governor for consideration, nor may the Governor sign into law, a budget bill that would appropriate from the General Fund, for that fiscal year, a total amount that. . .exceeds General Fund revenues for that fiscal year estimated as of the date of the budget bill's passage. That estimate of General Fund revenues shall be set forth in the budget bill passed by the Legislature.”

“While the vetoed budget contains solutions of questionable achievability and some to which I am personally opposed, current law provides no authority for my office to second-guess them in my enforcement of Proposition 25,”said Chiang. “My job is not to substitute my policy judgment for that of the Legislature and the Governor, rather it is to be the honest-broker of the numbers.”

Using this standard, the Controller’s analysis found that the recently-vetoed budget committed the State to $89.75 billion in spending, but only provided $87.9 billion in revenues, leaving an imbalance of $1.85 billion.

The largest problem involved the guaranteed level of education funding under Proposition 98. The June 15 budget underfunded education by more than $1.3 billion. Underfunding is not possible without suspending Proposition 98, which would require a supermajority (2/3) vote of the Legislature.

The budget also counted on $320 million in hospital fees, $103 million in taxes on managed-care plans, and $300 million in vehicle registration charges. However, the Legislature never passed the bills necessary to collect or spend those funds as part of the State budget.

A summary of the Controller’s analysis of the authorized expenditures versus the estimated revenues can be found on the Controller’s website at www.sco.ca.gov.

Controller Announces No Pay for Legislators Absent Balanced Budget by June 15 Deadline

SACRAMENTO – In response to recent questions regarding the impact of Proposition 25, Controller John Chiang today announced he will permanently withhold Legislators’ salary and per diem beginning on June 16 if they fail to approve a balanced budget in the next two weeks.

"Presenting the Governor with a balanced budget by the Constitutional deadline is the most important, if not most difficult, job of the California Legislature,” Chiang said. “In passing Proposition 25 last November, voters clearly stated they expect their representatives to make the difficult decisions needed to resolve any budget shortfalls by the mandatory deadline, or be penalized. I will enforce the voters’ demand.”

Proposition 25, titled the “On-Time Budget Act of 2010,” was approved by voters November 2, 2010. The initiative lowered the vote requirement for passing a budget from two-thirds to a simple majority. It also required members of the Legislature to forfeit their salary and reimbursement for travel and living expenses incurred from June 16 until “the day that the budget bill is presented to the Governor.” Payments forfeited will not be paid retroactively.


Recently, questions have been raised regarding whether the budget passed by the Legislature had to be balanced, or if the budget bills passed in March would suffice. The Controller’s analysis of these issues concludes Proposition 25 cannot be read in a vacuum, and must take into account the provisions of Proposition 58 (passed by voters on March 2, 2004), the intent language found in Proposition 25, and the voter information and campaign materials upon which the voters relied.

Proposition 58 states, “[T]he Legislature may not send to the Governor for consideration, nor may the Governor sign into law, a budget bill that would appropriate from the General Fund, for that fiscal year, a total amount that ...exceeds General Fund revenues for that fiscal year estimated as of the date of the budget bill’s passage.” Because Propositions 58 and 25 overlap in the same section of the Constitution and address the same topic, they must be read together. A copy of the Controller’s full legal analysis can be found here.

Controller Reaches Settlement with Insurer John Hancock

PR11:017
4/22/2011

Contact: Jacob Roper
916-445-2636

SACRAMENTO – State Controller John Chiang today announced a landmark settlement with insurer John Hancock, paving the way for reforms of wide-spread industry practices that have victimized the purchasers of life insurance policies and annuity contracts for decades. It is the first settlement resulting from an audit of 21 insurance companies that Controller Chiang began nearly three years ago.
“Too many Californians have been victimized by a company they entrusted with their retirement security and the care of their families,” Chiang said. “While John Hancock is the first to be held accountable, it will not be the last. I am prepared to pursue all actions necessary – including litigation – to bring the rest of the industry into compliance.”

The Controller initiated the audit investigation in July of 2008 to determine the insurance industry’s compliance with state unclaimed property laws. Administered by the Controller, the California unclaimed property program generally provides that businesses must send lost or abandoned financial accounts to the State after three years of inactivity in order to safeguard private property from being lost during mergers or bankruptcies, drawn down by service or storage fees, or simply used by private interests.
The audit revealed an industry-wide practice of companies failing to pay death benefits to the beneficiaries of life insurance policies. Instead, companies would draw-down the policies’ cash reserves in order to continue collecting premium payments from the deceased. Once the cash reserves were depleted, the company would cancel the policy. The audits also found that insurers did not routinely cross-check the owners of dormant accounts with government databases listing the deceased. In other cases, the company had direct knowledge of the death of a policy owner, but still did not notify the beneficiaries.
For example, a policy was issued by John Hancock on February 16, 1963, to an individual who subsequently died on April 20, 1999. For the seven years following his death, the company continued to collect premium payments by depleting the policy’s cash reserves until it was finally canceled on January 1, 2009. The policy’s file does not contain any indication of when the last contact with the insured occurred, or that any efforts were made to locate the insurance owner prior to the policy lapsing. More than 11 years after the insured’s death, John Hancock still has not paid the beneficiaries or sent to the State Controller’s Office for safekeeping any benefits due under the policy. The company has written off all liability under the policy.
The Controller’s investigation also exposed similar abuses with the administration of annuity contracts. For example, John Hancock issued a contract on June 7, 1991, to an individual who subsequently died on May 1, 1995. The company’s own files contain notes revealing that the annuitant owner’s mother called the company in August 2002 reporting that her son had died. Additional notations in the file dated June 15, 2005, and October 13, 2005, state that the annuitant had died. Despite these acknowledgments, the file indicates the company continued to send mail to him in 2005, 2006, and 2007 – all of which was returned as undeliverable. Another notation was made to the file on July 14, 2009, acknowledging the owner was deceased, and that the company, for the first time, had attempted to contact a relative. According to the file, on October 26, 2009 – more than 14 years after the annuitant’s death – John Hancock paid the death benefit to the annuitant’s estate.
Today’s ground-breaking settlement requires John Hancock, a subsidiary of Manulife Financial Corporation, to do the following

• Restore the full value of more than 6,400 impacted accounts dating back to 1992;
• Create and adhere to methods for better identifying deceased policy holders and notifying their beneficiaries;
• Fully comply with California’s unclaimed property laws and cooperate with the Controller’s efforts to reunite more than $20 million of death benefits and matured annuities with their owners or, in many cases, the owners’ heirs;
• Pay the State of California three percent compounded interest on the value of the held amounts from 1995, or from the date of the owner’s death, whichever is later.

“These policies were purchased to give the owners and their families peace of mind,” said Chiang. “I will move to quickly return those benefits to their rightful owners.”

OC Company Heads to Texas

The OC Register is reporting that home healthcare provider AccentCare is moving its corporate headquarters from Irvine to Dallas, according to the owner of the property where AccentCare has signed a lease for 33,000 square feet of space.

AccentCare is one of the nation’s fastest growing healthcare companies with more than 130 locations in California, New York, Ohio, Washington, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, Texas, Georgia and Tennessee.

California seems to be leading the nation as having the fastest shrinking job market by chasing away employers.

Read the complete article HERE.

Too Many Laws

It seems that California legislators have a lot of time on their hands.  As the editorial staff of the Orange County Register aptly points out in the January 14th, 2011, Sunday paper, state legislators have been busy passing lots of new laws.

Unfortunately, this is par for Sacramento.  How many laws do we need?  Seriously, how many do we need to be reasonably safe and secure?

How about one law that repeals at least half of all laws passed in the last 10+ years. 

Lot Line Adjustments Made Easy

Trial Court Upholds Napa County's Allowance of Multiple (Sequential) Lot Line Adjustments and Allows Them to be  Treated as "Ministerial" Under CEQA

On November 12, the Napa County Superior Court ruled in favor of

California and Greece: Economic Twins

TEXAS: Lower Taxes, Lower Government Spending, and Less Regulation

For those who point at Texas with a disapproving eye, it looks like Texas has the leg up on California in numerous ways.  From Jan Norman at the Orange County Register:

Texas’ competitive advantage over California, according to the study, is lower taxes, lower government spending and less regulation.

The study compared the two states on six broad categories:

• taxes on labor
• taxes on capital
• taxes on consumption
• overall tax environment
• regulatory environment
• government spending policies

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a free enterprise and personal responsibility research institute. One of the study’s authors is former Californian Arthur Laffer, a supply side economist who advised President Ronald Reagan. “A comparison between Texas and California is not only valid but vital for our country,” Laffer said. “Both are large, strategically located states with strong demographics and bountiful natural resources. But California’s regulatory and tax costs, coupled with budgetary and policy instability, render it an impotent competitor when standing next to low-tax, business-friendly Texas, which levies no capital gains or income taxes to support its affordable government.”

 

Laffer is perhaps best known for advocating that lower taxes can actually increase revenues to government by encouraging economic growth.

“It’s just striking how the states with no income tax (including Texas) outperform the states with high income taxes (California’s highest personal income tax rate, 10.55% is third highest in the nation),” Laffer said.
Sally C. Pipes, president and CEO of San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute, said, “If Californians still have trouble understanding why so many of our former neighbors have gone to Texas, this scorecard spells it out in painful detail.”

California does outperform Texas on a few measures:

• State and local property tax burden per capita: California $32.89, Texas $36.50
• Sales tax per $1,000 of personal income: California $25.62, Texas $29.47

But on most measures that the study uses, Texas comes out ahead:

• State sales tax rate: Texas 6.25%, California 8.25%
• Marginal corporate income tax rate: Texas 1% GRT, California 8.84%
• Total state and local government expenditures per capita: Texas $7,763.49, California $11,256.83
• Average annual growth in government spending: Texas 7.02%, California 7.29%
• Recession-related job loss from peak employment to July 2010: Texas, -2.3%, California, -8.7%

“The lighter regulatory burden in Texas also helps its economy flourish in comparison to California, which overloads businesses in the state with excessive costs and burdens,” the 2010 study says.

 

 

 

The California Subdivision Map Act - A One Day Seminar

COST: $195

TIME
Registration: 8:30 am
Class: 9:00 am - 4:30 pm

Includes the 2010

edition of the

Map Act Navigator

(a $49.95 value)




WHAT IS COVERED?
This seminar provides guidelines for effective use of the Subdivision Map Act. The instructors will discuss the responsibilities and powers of local agencies under the Act, as well as particular issues regarding when the Act applies.


Seminar highlights:
•Discussion of Legislative and Judicial changes in 2009
•Relationship of Map Act to other planning, zoning and development laws, and to CEQA
•When the Map Act applies (and when not)
•What kind of Map (Tentative/Final or Parcel Map) to use
•Certificates of Compliance
•Lot Line Adjustments
•Exemptions and exceptions under the Map Act
•Life of Tentative Map
•Vested Rights (including Vesting Maps, Development Agreements and Common Law Vesting)
•Exactions/Dedications/Fees
•Creative mapping approaches

WHO SHOULD ATTEND?
This seminar is designed for planners, surveyors, engineers, developers, builders, attorneys, project managers, architects, planning commissioners, council and board members, property managers, public works and utilities directors, zoning board members, and all others involved with the land use process.


This course qualifies for 6.0 hours of California MCLE credit.


Group discounts are available.


FACULTY
Michael P. Durkee
Partner



David H. Blackwell
Partner


REGISTERLOCATIONS

BAKERSFIELD
Thurs., June 24, 2010
Bakersfield Marriott at the
Convention Center
801 Truxtun Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301


RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Thurs., Sept. 23, 2010
Rancho Cucamonga
Community Center
Lion's Park Building
9191 Baseline Road
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730


SAN DIEGO
Thurs., Oct. 28, 2010
San Diego Concourse
Copper Room
202 West C Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Map

ADRIAN MOORE DISCUSSES EXORBITANT GOVERNMENT PAY IN CALIFORNIA ON VARNEY & CO.

Click HERE to view video.

Subdivision Map Act Seminar coming soon to a location near you

WHAT IS COVERED?

This seminar provides guidelines for effective use of the Subdivision Map Act. The instructors will discuss the responsibilities and powers of local agencies under the Act, as well as particular issues regarding when the Act applies.


Seminar highlights:


•Discussion of Legislative and Judicial changes in 2009
•Relationship of Map Act to other planning, zoning and development laws, and to CEQA
•When the Map Act applies (and when not)
•What kind of Map (tentative/final or parcel map) to use
•Certificates of Compliance
•Lot Line Adjustments
•Exemptions and exceptions under the Map Act
•Life of Tentative Map
•Vested Rights (including Vesting Maps, Development Agreements and Common Law Vesting)
•Exactions/Dedications/Fees
•Creative mapping approaches


WHO SHOULD ATTEND?
This seminar is designed for planners, surveyors, engineers, developers, builders, attorneys, project managers, architects, planning commissioners, council and board members, property managers, public works and utilities directors, zoning board members, and all others involved with the land use process.



This course qualifies for 6.0 hours of California MCLE Credit.

SAN LUIS OBISPO

Thurs., May 27, 2010

REGISTER

(pay by Credit Card)

REGISTER

(pay by Check or Cash)

City/County Library

995 Palm Street

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Map

BAKERSFIELD

Thurs., June 24, 2010

REGISTER

(pay by Credit Card)

REGISTER

(pay by Check or Cash)

Bakersfield Marriot at the Convention Center

Salon A

801 Truxtun Ave.

Bakersfield, CA 93301

Map

RANCHO CUCAMONGA

Thurs., Sept. 23, 2010

REGISTER

(pay by Credit Card)

REGISTER

(pay by Check or Cash)

Rancho Cucamonga

Community Center

Lion's Park Building

9191 Baseline Road

Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

Map

SAN DIEGO

Thurs., Oct. 28, 2010

REGISTER

(pay by Credit Card)

REGISTER

(pay by Check or Cash)

San Diego Concourse

Copper Room

202 West C Street

San Diego, CA 92101

Map

ACEC CA Sponsored Legislation Related to the Crawford Supreme Court "Duty To Defend" Decision - SB 972

****UPDATE****
I met with Ca. Assemblyman Chris Norby's staff at his district office last Friday, June 11, 2010. His staff indicated that SB 972 looked like it would be on the Governor's desk very soon. They didn't see any reason why it would be stalled any further.
****UPDATE****

This showed up in my email this morning. After reading the background on this, I see the need to get this passed as quickly as possible. Read it and pass it along where you can.

###

TAKE ACTION - SUPPORT ACEC LEGISLATION - DUTY TO DEFEND OBLIGATIONS FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS Take Action!

ACEC CA Sponsored Legislation Related to the Crawford Supreme Court "Duty To Defend" Decision

ACEC sponsored SB 972 responds to the Supreme Court's ruling in Crawford and an Appeals Court's ruling in UDC. These terrible rulings can force design professionals to pay an indemnitee's attorney fees even when a firm was neither negligent nor in breach of contract. Moreover, in the UDC case the court ruled that the engineering firm had a duty to defend the indemnitee, even though the plaintiff did not even allege that the engineering firm was negligent.

It is literally impossible for a design professional firms to obtain insurance to cover other's attorney fees in these circumstances. These cases force companies to literally "bet the firm" every time a contract signed. That is terrible for business and job growth and frankly is just not right.

SB 972 is important and urgently needed. Already in response to these court rulings, design professional firms are increasingly confronted with onerous and uninsurable indemnity demands in contracts and tenders for the defense of lawsuits not involving allegations of professional negligence. Relief, as envisioned by SB 972, is critical.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION TODAY!! SEND THIS EMAIL TO OTHERS SO THEY CAN TAKE ACTION TOO!!

Thanks,
Mark Smith
ACEC CA Legislative Advocate
916-335-5072

Email From Steve Poizner for Governor

In Case You Missed It:

California's Governor Race Shows Signs Of A Scott Brown-Like Victory For Poizner

By Kimberly Dvorak

San Francisco Examiner

May 6, 2010

With GOP Senator Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts as inspiration, Steve Poizner’s campaign has risen from the dead and pulled within 10 points of Meg Whitman in the Republican primary race for governor.

While the numbers come from internal polling, the outfit providing the intel is none other than Senator Scott Brown’s public polling firm. The numbers demonstrate “how fluid the race is,” said Neil Newhouse of Public Opinion Strategies.

The polling concluded on Tuesday and demonstrated that the 800 likely Republican voters were taking a second look at Poizner. Approximately 38 percent said they would vote for Whitman, while 28 percent favored Poizner and 30 percent were undecided. Just over a month ago Whitman led by nearly 50 points.

Newhouse said that outside the San Francisco Bay Area, Whitman’s lead is cut to five points, 35 to 30 percent with a month to go until the primary election. “This race is eerily similar to the Brown, Coakley race,” he said.

“Where we are running our messaging, we have closed from 48 points down to five points. Meg, the marketing expert, needs a refresher course because she probably could have spent less than $70 million to lose 43 points, but at least she provided a bailout for her political consultants who she needs to remind her of her deeply held beliefs,” said Team Poizner Communications Director Jarrod Agen. “We all know Meg went on a climate change cruise with Van Jones and Jimmy Carter, now she’s become the most expensive melting glacier in political history.”

The California Republican governor’s race has now shown signs of life and with 30 days until voters hit the booth, Poizner’s camp says the energy has shifted in their favor.

“Our poll shows that Meg Whitman’s lead over Steve Poizner, which we measured at 59%-11% in February, has closed to 38%-28%, with Whitman holding just a ten-point lead,” Agen explains. “Further, it’s important to note that even though Whitman has spent considerable resources in the area, Steve has not yet aggressively advertised in the San Francisco Bay Area market. “

Poizner’s camp explains that like the Scott Brown race in Massachusetts; ”this race has been largely misunderstood by the media. Campaigns, especially primary campaigns, and especially in large states like California, are seldom won three or four months out from election day.”

With the President discussing the immigration issue at a White House Cinco de Mayo event and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano saying the Democrats are “focused on the border like a laser,” a fair question for Poizner is the immigration issue that has exploded across the nation.

“The federal government has not done enough to end illegal immigration, leaving states like Arizona and California to take fend for themselves,” said Team Poizner’s Agen. “Like Meg Whitman, President Obama has called for an amnesty plan that allows illegal immigrants to pay a fine, go to the back of the line, and become citizens. Steve Poizner strongly opposes amnesty and he is the only candidate in this race that is willing to make ending illegal immigration a top priority.”

Since Arizona passed its tough new illegal immigration law, many California cities have decided to boycott or denounce Arizona. Poizner says he would ‘get tough’ on the issue in California if were governor.
 “Steve supports Arizona’s new law, which takes a bold approach to dealing with illegal immigration while making it crystal clear that racial profiling is both illegal and wrong. Arizona has acted because the federal government has failed to secure our borders,” Agen said. “It is time for California to do the same and, as governor, Steve pledges to make stopping illegal immigration one of his highest priorities. He has detailed a bold plan to address the crisis, which includes cutting off taxpayer-funded benefits to illegal aliens, employing state resources to help secure our borders, ending sanctuary cities, and cracking down on employers who hire illegal aliens”

Poizner points out while Whitman and her liberal allies in Congress want to reward illegal aliens with a 'pathway to citizenship,' he has just two words: ‘No Amnesty.’
Read the article here.

ACEC CA Sponsored Legislation Related to the Crawford Supreme Court "Duty To Defend" Decision - SB 972

****UPDATE****
I met with Ca. Assemblyman Chris Norby's staff at his district office last Friday, June 11, 2010.  His staff indicated that SB 972 looked like it would be on the Governor's desk very soon.  They didn't see any reason why it would be stalled any further.
****UPDATE**** 


This showed up in my email this morning.  After reading the background on this, I see the need to get this passed as quickly as possible.  Read it and pass it along where you can. 

###

TAKE ACTION - SUPPORT ACEC LEGISLATION - DUTY TO DEFEND OBLIGATIONS FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS Take Action!

ACEC CA Sponsored Legislation Related to the Crawford Supreme Court "Duty To Defend" Decision

ACEC sponsored SB 972 responds to the Supreme Court's ruling in Crawford and an Appeals Court's ruling in UDC. These terrible rulings can force design professionals to pay an indemnitee's attorney fees even when a firm was neither negligent nor in breach of contract. Moreover, in the UDC case the court ruled that the engineering firm had a duty to defend the indemnitee, even though the plaintiff did not even allege that the engineering firm was negligent.

It is literally impossible for a design professional firms to obtain insurance to cover other's attorney fees in these circumstances. These cases force companies to literally "bet the firm" every time a contract signed. That is terrible for business and job growth and frankly is just not right.

SB 972 is important and urgently needed. Already in response to these court rulings, design professional firms are increasingly confronted with onerous and uninsurable indemnity demands in contracts and tenders for the defense of lawsuits not involving allegations of professional negligence. Relief, as envisioned by SB 972, is critical.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION TODAY!! SEND THIS EMAIL TO OTHERS SO THEY CAN TAKE ACTION TOO!!

Thanks,
Mark Smith
ACEC CA Legislative Advocate
916-335-5072

The California Subdivision Map Act - A One Day Seminar

WHAT IS COVERED?

This seminar provides guidelines for effective use of the Subdivision Map Act. The instructors will discuss the responsibilities and powers of local agencies under the Act, as well as particular issues regarding when the Act applies.

Seminar highlights:
•Discussion of Legislative and Judicial changes in 2009
•Relationship of Map Act to other planning, zoning and development laws, and to CEQA
•When the Map Act applies (and when not)
•What kind of Map (Tentative/Final or Parcel Map) to use
•Certificates of Compliance
•Lot Line Adjustments
•Exemptions and exceptions under the Map Act
•Life of Tentative Map
•Vested Rights (including Vesting Maps, Development Agreements and Common Law Vesting)
•Exactions/Dedications/Fees
•Creative mapping approaches


WHO SHOULD ATTEND?
This seminar is designed for planners, surveyors, engineers, developers, builders, attorneys, project managers, architects, planning commissioners, council and board members, property managers, public works and utilities directors, zoning board members, and all others involved with the land use process.

This course qualifies for 6.0 hours of California MCLE credit.

COST: $195

TIME

Registration: 8:30 am

Class: 9:00 am - 4:30 pm

Includes the 2010

edition of the

Map Act Navigator

(a $49.95 value)


RANCHO CUCAMONGA

Thurs., Sept. 23, 2010
REGISTER (pay by Credit Card)
REGISTER (pay by Check or Cash)
Rancho Cucamonga Community Center
Lion's Park Building
9191 Baseline Road
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Map

Get Your Copy of Bill Hunt's New Book, "Bill of Rights!" NOW!!!

Get Your Copy of Bill Hunt's New Book, "Bill of Rights!" NOW!!!

Posted using ShareThis

L.A. Airport Police Advocate Authorizing All Law Enforcement Officers to Carry Firearms Aboard Domestic Flights

For Immediate Release

Contact:

Marshall McClain
(310) 242-5218
(818) 515-1015
L.A. airport police advocate authorizing all law enforcement officers to carry firearms aboard domestic flights

LOS ANGELES - February 8, 2010 –
The nation's largest airport police association today advocated authorizing all law enforcement officers to carry firearms aboard domestic airline flights. Marshall McClain, president of the Los Angeles Airport Peace Officers Association (LAAPOA), said the program proposed to the Obama Administration by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) is warranted in light of the recent attempt to detonate an explosive device aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day and recent intelligence that Al-Qaeda is likely to attempt a terrorist attack in the U.S. within the next six months.

"We believe that additional armed, trained law enforcement personnel aboard aircraft is a prudent measure to be taken at this time," said McClain. "We join FLEOA in urging President Obama to issue an Executive Order to authorize all law enforcement officers, active and retired, and certified by the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA), to carry firearms aboard domestic flights as an added line of defense against terrorists."

The LEOSA of 2004 authorizes all law enforcement officers, active and retired, to carry firearms anywhere in the country, at any time, as long as they meet the criteria set forth in the act and qualify with their firearm on an annual basis. But they are only allowed to carry them aboard commercial airlines when traveling on official business and authorized by their department. The FLEOA maintains that all law enforcement officers who are LEOSA certified, and possess an annual medical clearance, are valuable assets that should be used to augment domestic flight coverage provided by federal air marshals.

FLEOA asked the President to direct the Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation Security Administration to comply with an Executive Order authorizing LEOSA-certified law enforcement officers to fly armed. FLEOA believes that the Federal Air Marshal Service has the ability to coordinate this effort and this action is necessary at this time as an additional layer of security to safeguard the flying public.


About the Los Angeles Airport Peace Officers Association:
The Los Angeles Airport Peace Officers Association represents more than 425 sworn police officers and firefighters of the Los Angeles Airport Police Department assigned to protect and serve Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) and Van Nuys Airport (VNY). Its Mission is to maintain a leadership role in organizing, empowering and representing the interests of all current and retired members.

NOTE: This story was first reported on KFI AM640 by Steven Gregory who provided me with the link to this press release. After reading it, I can't help but wonder why any citizen couldn't carry a firearm on board a domestic flight if they have received proper firearm training. Why restrict it only to law enforcement? If an officer wants to know how it feels to be a typical California citizen, just leave your gun at home.