How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
Letters
- Details
- Written by: Judy Thein
National Crime Victims’ Right Week is a time for all Americans to learn about the dynamics of victimization, reflect on the cost of crime on their community and our society, and vigorously support and promote the enactment and application of laws, policies and programs to help victims of crime rebuild shattered lives.
Only a few decades ago, unfairness, indignities, and disrespect confronted many victims of crime. As of 2010, every state has passed victims rights laws, and 32 states have constitution victims’ rights amendments. There are more than 10,000 victim assistance programs throughout the country, and every state has a crime victim compensation fund.
Such changes have made victims participants, rather than bystanders, in the criminal justice system.
Despite all of the programs and all of the progress in supporting victims and their rights, much work remains. Victim rights are meaningless unless they are enforced. Some victims never learn about victim compensation or receive victim services. Some surviving family members of crime death cases are forced to suffer an overwhelming victimization without assistance, because victim rights were not enacted.
Some courts deny victims the right to be heard at sentencing or receive no notice when an offender is released. Some courts fail to issue protection orders to keep victims safe or they fail to order restitution. For victims that receive court orders for restitution, all too often offenders are released from probation without having met their obligations of restitution, leaving the victims with another act of betrayal. Such failures block victim’s access to their rights.
When a victim reports a crime because an officer treats him/her fairly, it enhances the safety of the entire community. When a court hears an impact statement or issues an order of restitution which is enforced by conditions of probation, victims learn the power of fairness, dignity and respect. Yet, when our nation falls short on these ideals, we fail victims and dishonor the progress we mark this week.
Lake County is fortunate that we have the Lake County District Attorney’s Victim/Witness Assistance Program, which excels in their on-going support and advocacy, assisting victims and survivors of crime. These victim advocates work tirelessly to give victims a voice and to help crime victims and their families understand the rights they are guaranteed under the California criminal justice system.
Knowing first hand the indignities and lack of enforcement victims suffer from some agencies outside of Lake County that fall short of enacting objectives, I commend the Lake County District Attorney’s Victim/Witness Assistance Program as their guidance, dedication and commitment of services embody the ideals of Crime Victims Right Week: Fairness, dignity and respect.
Judy Thein is founder of Team DUI and the mayor of the city of Clearlake.
- Details
- Written by: David W. Smith
I’m writing this letter as both a concerned citizen of Lake County, and a concerned care provider.
Recently our wonderful state of California has made precedence with new requirements for caregivers within the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program. These requirements are for fingerprint and subsequent background checks on all IHSS caregivers.
The idea of this is certainly considered a good idea, however, something has come to my attention, that the criteria that is set for these providers hasn’t been made very clear to everyone involved, both providers and recipients alike.
I’m hoping, through this letter, to assist with sharing this information with the help of our local media.
The state sent a letter to all providers and recipients with a vague idea of what the criteria is for screening all providers. What the letter succeeded in accomplishing was scaring the living daylights out of everyone involved.
What the letter failed to do was explain the exact criteria for what would keep a provider from being able to do this critical job of keeping someone safe in their home and, thusly, keeping our taxes from going up, because these individuals will be staying out of institutions that are paid with those very same taxes.
The scary part of this situation is that the state has made it clear that they want to reduce this critical workforce by attempting to “weed out” people that “they” feel are undesirable.
The fact is: Regardless if someone had a conviction many years ago that had nothing to do with hurting any individual (such as possession of a controlled substance felony), and this person served their time after that conviction, and this was done well over 10 years ago, they should be allowed to find employment, even if it is taking care of a disabled person, who may really need and want this particular person.
We as a society should be asking ourselves two big questions about this subject: “Who are we to judge another human being, especially someone who has paid the price for their indiscretion?” and “Should we continue punishing those individuals even after they served the time for that crime?”
Another fact: On Nov. 24, 2009, the Supreme Court of California, in the county of Alameda in the Case of Ellis vs. Wagner; a decision was handed down with exactly what was needed to stop all this confusion surrounding the criteria for these requirements intended for the IHSS providers. The “ONLY” felony convictions that can stop someone from being an IHSS caregiver are: (1) felony child/adult/elder abuse and (2) felony medical fraud.
What has truly worried and concerns me is that many people are not aware of this decision and some are even considering giving up on working with IHSS and accepting that they cannot be paid for doing this critical service, because they feel that they may not pass the background check; all because of something stupid that they did when they were a young, cocky 18-year-old.
Not only will this type of decision affect the provider by not working anymore, it will affect the unemployment numbers, and the benefits of unemployment (all paid for with tax dollars).
This will also affect the individual recipients who stand to lose their lifeline to the outside world, especially from a job that barely pays minimum wage in Lake County.
Not many people are willing to do this type of work because it can be a very stressful job and especially when the wonderful people already doing this job have been with these recipients (in some cases) many years.
For those of you reading this, please help in passing this information along. It is very important for the sake of all those involved.
David W. Smith is an IHSS caregiver. He lives in Nice.
- Details
- Written by: Ron Green
I have been reliably informed that the State Bar of California has filed a complaint and is investigating District Attorney Jon Hopkins’ conduct in the Dinius boating case, primarily focusing on his outrageous open letter to the newspapers during jury selection.
Since Mr. Hopkins always says “integrity is my hallmark,” I call on him to immediately make public all letters from the State Bar concerning this investigation.
It’s time we know what Mr. Hopkins knows and when he knew it. After all, Mr. Hopkins is running for district attorney, a public office that requires integrity and transparency.
Although State Bar investigations are considered confidential, Mr. Hopkins can still release this information, since California Business and Professions Code Section 6086.1 specifically says the attorney under investigation may waive confidentiality.
There is no reason Mr. Hopkins could not release these letters and then explain his position, especially since he’s already demonstrated that he loves to write open letters to the papers when it suits him.
Shouldn’t the public be fully informed about this so we can decide whether to vote for a candidate for district attorney who might be suspended or even disbarred from the practice of law? Don’t the voters have a right to know?
How about a little honesty and transparency on this issue? Is that too much to ask for a candidate for District Attorney who runs on a platform of integrity, experience and professionalism?
Ron Green is an attorney based in Lower Lake.
- Details
- Written by: Lake County News Reports
Commentary associated with recent Lake County News coverage of the proposed airport redevelopment project in the city of Clearlake indicates that many people may misunderstand both the Sierra Club's purpose in bringing legal action and also the extremely tenuous relation between this action and the city's fiscal straits.
The petition filed by the Sierra Club Lake Group has one purpose only: to compel the city to prepare an environmental impact report on the project. The legal necessity for doing this has been detailed in writing (twice) and in public hearings (twice), and also substantiated by expert testimony, but when the city chose to ignore this evidence, an appeal to the courts was the only recourse available to the club.
According to strict limitations governing such action this appeal had to be initiated within 30 days, meaning by March 26. It is however still very much within the city's power to avoid burdensome legal expenses, merely by revoking project approvals and doing the EIR according to the process mandated by state law. The Lake Group hopes that this sensible course of action will emerge from the compulsory reconciliation process that is expected to be scheduled soon.
For a more detailed discussion of club views on the project, please download the position paper at http://redwood.sierraclub.org/lake/Lowespositionpaper.pdf .
Whatever the city decides to do about the lawsuit, it has nothing to do with the municipality's possible bankruptcy, something that the city council has been discussing in open session since at least Feb. 11.
The Sierra Club didn't create Clearlake's depressing fiscal quagmire, nor are delays to the Lowe's project impeding a solution as has been asserted: the project would be unable to offer a near-term remedy even if the improbably rosy projections presented by the city manager proved accurate, since AT BEST it would take years for anticipated tax revenues to begin.
Legal action aside, the project would furthermore be delayed by the unavailability of sewer service until the very necessary system upgrades are complete, several years in the future at the very earliest.
As for the sewer, it’s hard to understand what the council had in mind in rescinding their partnership agreement with the county to provide a long-lasting fix to a system so faulty that raw sewage bubbles up around manhole covers.
Did they suppose that the upgrade will therefore have to be abandoned? If so do they accept the continuing pollution of city streets, local watercourses and Clear Lake, and the indefinite impediment to growth imposed by system undercapacity? Or did they assume that the county will move ahead anyway, as is the intention of LACOSAN and the Board of Supervisors?
Under that assumption, the council's action expressed its willingness to shift virtually the entire $5 million cost onto local ratepayers – who are also local voters who might be expected to voice their displeasure at the ballot box.
Clearlake residents and others concerned about what's going on at city hall would be well advised to convey their disapproval to the city council and city administrator. They can all be reached 707-994-8201.
Victoria Brandon lives in Lower Lake. She writes on behalf of the Sierra Club Lake Group.