Would the Gang Injuction Serve Us Well In the Case of the Amtrak Beating?

I post this letter to the editor that appeared a few days ago in the Woodland Daily Democrat. I am not certain I agree with all of the letter. But there has always been something about the case described above that has not sit well with me.

Five of the youths were charged for crimes. Four of them were found guilty. That's of course the headline. It is interesting that while a lot of the news accounts covered the guilty verdicts, a few of them did not note that they were acquitted of the most serious charge--attempted murder.

In fact, from what I see, only the Sacramento Bee reported that they were acquitted of the attempted murder charges.

They were convicted of various assault charges, attempted manslaughter, and of course being members of the Broderick Boys street gang.

But as Mr. McKinnon points out, this case arose about the time the original gang injunction was thrown out. It was sited as why we need the gang injunction. What Mr. Reisig never explained to us is how the gang injunction would have prevented this incident.



The rhetoric was heightened was the beginning, with Mr. Reisig referring to the suspects as "domestic terrorists."



What does not sit well and Mr. McKinnon notes in his letter was the actions of the engineer who was attacked. Why would he get out of the train and confront them rather than call the police? Did his confrontation and punching one of the young men on the tracks six or more times, escalate the incident from simple mayhem and mischief to violence?



I am not trying to minimize the incident, but again, the media descriptions of the incident have never sat well with me. They are too neat. The incident seemed too well-timed to prove a point on the gang injunction.

Does labeling them as gang members help us in some way? Would the gang injunction have prevented this incident? Are we safer with such laws? I have often wondered.



On a personal level I believe that even gang members are covered by the constitution and are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I will point out the obvious here as well, the legal system isn't exactly stacked in their favor as it is. Law enforcement feels hamstrung in fighting this kinds of crime, and yet we see large numbers of young minority males in jail. There is a disconnect here, and yet I never hear people on the other side question if maybe we ought not take a little different approach to law enforcement. To acknowledge that the heavy-handed, sometimes almost militaristic mindset just isn't an effective means by which to fight crime.

None of this unfortunately answers the questions I still have about this case, even after the convictions. I didn't attend the trial, I wasn't there, perhaps the case was simple and clear cut. But I still find it interesting that most news accounts never bothered to report that they were acquitted of the most serious charge.

The question here to me is not whether these individuals deserve jail time, whether they deserved to be acquitted, a court of law ruled that they did, but the question to me is whether the DA overreached in the case with some of the charges and the overall efficacy of the gang injunction as a crime fighting tool. Some of the asserted facts are bitterly disputed by residents in the affected areas.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Preliminary Gang Injunction Granted

The Sacramento Bee reports this morning that Judge Kathleen White has allowed the preliminary gang injunction to go forward.

"In her six-page ruling, White said prosecutors had shown "by clear and convincing evidence" that they probably would prevail at trial on whether broad and long-lasting restrictions were needed to combat gang crime in the Broderick and Bryte neighborhoods.

The potential harm to the defendants – including two dozen alleged gang members named by prosecutors and up to 400 unnamed individuals – was outweighed by the harm to the community if the injunction had not been issued, White wrote."

On the other hand there were some limitations to the injunction:

"But White also said the criteria proposed by prosecutors for identifying gang members were overly broad and "would likely result in the curtailment of the rights" of residents who had little or no connection with gangs.

She limited the injunction to active gang members, including those who admitted to being Broderick Boys or were named by reliable informants as gang members.

Included under the judge's order are those who have tattoos associated with the Broderick Boys."

Civil rights attorney Joshua Kaizuka believes that the police still have very broad discretion in identifying who a Broderick Boy is and to curtail their civil rights.

Now that the preliminary injunction is in place, there will be a trial to determine if a permanent court order should be issued.

Commentary:

I remain concerned as Mr. Kaizuka does, that the police have very broad discretion in identifying who a Broderick Boy is. There have been numerous complaints by citizens that this injunction has led to the curtailment of the rights of residents who are not affiliated with gangs. This is reinforced by comments made by the Judge here.

The criteria put forward by the Judge remain overly broad. Those who admit to being Broderick Boys--does that mean under some formalized process or could they simply be compelled to sign a waiver as a condition of release from prison on a minor charge? This has been an accusation put forward by opponents of the injunction. Those named by "reliable" informants seems even more broad and more subject to problems.

Is there some kind of procedure where a person affected by the injunction can appeal that? Since this is a civil penalty, they are not entitled to court appointed representation. As a result, top caliber lawyers such as Mark Merin, Joshua Kaizuka and others have volunteered their time. Future defendants likely would not have access to top notch representation if at all.

My final problem remains with the process--it turns the justice system on its head by removing the due process of law requirement for loss of liberty while at the same time making it a civil procedure rather than a criminal one, meaning there is no right to an attorney.

I simply cannot get passed these waiving of cherished constitutional principles. People have repeatedly in response to these arguments suggested that gang members are bad people and questioned whether I have witnessed their wrath first hand. I have no doubt in the world that some of these gang members are bad people, but I believe even really bad people are entitled to due process. I also believe as Judge White seems to that this net will catch not only really bad people but people who really are not bad at all. That troubles me greatly. I would think there could be procedures put in place to allow the bad people to be prevented from associating with gangs while at the same time give the good people a chance not to get caught up in the net. It is hard to believe that this is a radical notion, but for some it seems to be.

Judge White spoke repeatedly about trying to avoid allowing the political to get into the courtroom--an admirable stance. However, at the end of the day, it is the legal and the constitutional aspects of this that remain most troubling to this non-lawyer.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Rick Gore completes Testimony on Gang Injunction

It was likely not the kind of testimony that those seeking to avoid a temporary gang injunction were looking for. Under very strict guidance from Judge Kathy White, Rick Gore completed his testimony yesterday about an affidavit he signed in support of the gang injunction.

The gist of what we learned from this is that in late 2004 Rick Gore was working in conjunction with West Sacramento Detective Villanueva. While he was not working specifically on the anti-gang unit, as there was no such unit until Jeff Reisig became District Attorney in 2007, he nevertheless was familiar with the situation in West Sacramento and worked on a number of gang cases.

In late 2004 until sometime prior to 2007 he worked on this and sent forth an affidavit in 2004 attesting to his support for the gang injunction. Last year the gang injunction was thrown out. In May of 2007, he was asked to sign the same gang affidavit that he signed in 2004, but he refused citing the fact that he did not believe in it. He told them that he would not sign it again until ordered. He was given the order by District Attorney Jeff Reisig through Deputy District Attorney Linden to sign it.

He had language removed from the affidavit that he did not agree with before signing the document under the penalty of perjury. By the time he signed the document it was simply a statement of some facts from prior to 2004, there was no opinion expressed on support for the gang injunction.

Throughout the entire hearing, there was a question as to whether or not this was relevant to their proceedings. Rick Gore testified that everything that he signed in the original affidavit was accurate as was everything he eventually signed in 2007.

In his letter from March 5, 2008 which was discussed but not entered into evidence during the course of this hearing, Gore stated:

"I think this injunction is being used for your political benefit and not for what it was intended. It is no longer a tool for law enforcement and public safety."

When asked about whether he believed this as of May 2007 when he signed the affidavit, Rick Gore said repeatedly he was unsure of what he thought at that time. His reason for not wanting to sign it was that he was not involved in the process and did not therefore have direct knowledge of the situation.

He had two reasons for not wanting to sign it, the first was that he was no longer involved in the process. The second was based on his experience with the first gang injunction, he felt that Jeff Reisig had turned it into a political benchmark. And his dealings with DA Jeff Reisig over the past year led him to be skeptical about the process. He therefore did not want to be involved in signing anything unless ordered to do so by DA Jeff Reisig.

He also described this as an unusual request. Deputy District Attorney Ann Hurd went to great lengths to show that signing documents under the penalty of perjury was part of his job descriptions, but under cross examination, Rick Gore suggested that this was really not part of his job descriptions. The process of being asked to sign an affidavit in support of a policy was neither usual nor part of his job description.

At the end of the day, it is not clear that any of this matters for the gang injunction. As the Deputy DA Hurd demonstrated, the actual affidavit is devoid of personal opinion, it is not clear that Gore had opposition to the Gang Injunction back in May of 2007 and even if he did, it was based largely on his opinion rather than his expertise.

From a political standpoint, the testimony is a bit more interesting, however, because of the narrow parameters laid out by Judge White--intentionally to avoid the political aspect that transcends the courtroom--very little of this came out.

Rick Gore wrote in his letter:

"As for the current and past Gang Injunction, when gathering intelligence, contacting active members and working with Detective Villanueva, I fully supported these efforts. However, after seeing this become your political benchmark, I have watched this injunction grow into something I did not want to be associated with or a part of, since I felt it had lost its original intent and purpose. As a Peace Officer and a public servant, I feel I should be doing the right thing and standing up against dishonest behavior. You make this very difficult."

What became clear yesterday is that this is an opinion that has evolved over time and was not necessary one that was held in 2007. Moreover, as Gore suggested in his own testimony, he had not intended the letter to be a legal document.

In the end, the county investigators will have to tease apart what did and did not happen. From the standpoint of the political system outside of the courtroom, it was interesting because Gore did put under oath some of what was written in the letter.

The most interesting facet of the letter remains the intent to conceal discoverable evidence about a material witness in the Halloween Homicide case.

As an aside, there was an interesting piece of information that came out of the proceedings is that there was no gang unit prior to Jeff Reisig becoming District Attorney. At which time, Reisig got a grant for gang money which carries with it enough money to hire individual investigators who are specifically assigned to prosecuting gangs. How much money is it? Enough to hire additional people and also for law enforcement in local jurisdictions as well. There are few avenues for additional money going to a prosecutor's office and gangs are one of them. It would seem in their best interest to have a concerted effort to crack down on gangs and to make it look like there is a bigger gang problem perhaps than actually exists.

The Vanguard will continue to follow this matter and report on any updates.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Rick Gore Appears in Court in Gang Injunction Challenge

On Tuesday, we learned in the local media that attorneys opposing the implementation of the second gang injunction including Mark Merin were seeking to call Senior Investigators for the Yolo County District Attorney's, Rick Gore as a material witness.

At issue is an affidavit signed by Rick Gore attesting to his support for the gang injunction.

In his letter to the District Attorney, Jeff Reisig on March 5, 2008, he argues that he no longer agrees with the current gang injunction nor does he think it is needed. However, he was compelled to sign "an affidavit in support of the injunction under penalty of perjury. I did not want to sign it as written since it was not prepared by me and I thought portions of my affidavit were untrue." He signed an affidavit of support for the second gang injunction that is currently in the process of being challenged.

He continues:

"I was called in by DDA Linden a few days later, and was told [Reisig] had ordered me to sign this injunction and I had no choice. Knowing I could be fired for not following this order, I signed it after changing some of the language."

The fact that Deputy District Attorney Linden was named in the letter forced him to disqualify himself from conducting the cross-examination of Rick Gore who was called by the defense as a hostile witness. This postponed the hearing until the afternoon when Deputy District Attorney Ann Hurd would be available.

Judge Kathleen White once again warned both sides that this was a hearing about law, she understands that there are outside politics in play on this issue, but she was only interested in Mr. Gore's testimony as far as the law went.

From our standpoint however, Mr. Gore got up and under oath and penalty of perjury he told the court yesterday that he was compelled to sign an affidavit that he did not believe. In other words, he confirmed under oath what he had said in that portion of the letter.

However, at the point in which he was directly questioned about the letter he sent off, he asked to consult his attorney and was granted a recess for him to make a call to his attorney who was not present. Upon return, he expressed a desire not to address the issue of the letter until court returns on April 8, 2008.

The attorney's for the defense and the District Attorney's office disagree over whether his expertise on the matter of the gang injunction is relevant. DDA Hurd argued that he was no longer working on the gang injunction and therefore he was not an expert on the matter. However, the defense argued that he only stopped working on the gang injunction a month prior to sending the letter and therefore he knew as much as anyone. This is a disputed issue that will be taken up on April 8, 2008.

It is interesting to note that there was a good deal of dispute between the two sides as to whether Rick Gore could even testify. It was pointed out by the defense that he was a listed witness for the people by virtue of the fact that his declaration was on file. And if they chose to pull his declaration, this could all end.

However, the District Attorney's office declined to do so. So Rick Gore was able to speak on the record.

The defense obviously sees Mr. Gore as a key material witness corroborating their claims that the gang injunction is not needed. But in terms of an overall impact on the case itself, the bigger intrigue was having Rick Gore basically confirm aspects of the letter under oath.

If we look at this objectively--when the letter came out, the District Attorney's office claimed that Rick Gore wrote his letter at the behest of Former Deputy District Attorney and Candidate for DA Pat Lenzi. Mr. Gore responded questioning why he would put his career in grave jeopardy for someone else's agenda. And we can now extend that further--why would he make claims under penalty of oath to help Pat Lenzi.

From that standpoint he testimony in court yesterday and any future testimony he offers flies in the face of that logic.

It seems to me however, that in terms of the impact on the gang injunction, this will be minimal unless at the April 8, 2008 hearing he offers very compelling evidence to suggest that the gang injunction is not needed.

Overall Rick Gore seemed to be an impressive and compelling witness. Perhaps a straight shooter to a fault. There was one exchange with Judge White right after he reported on his conversation with his attorney where the Judge was trying to clarify Mr. Gore's remarks, Mr. Gore said he did not say that, and the Judge laughed and commented on how straight he was shooting.

In terms of the overall gang injunction, while I see the approach the defense is trying to take, and from a political standpoint it may be a good approach. From a legal standpoint it would seem better to go after this case on constitutional grounds--the notion of due process of law still applies here. While it can be argued certainly that the District Attorney's office made a greater effort to notice the affected community than on the first gang injunction, it still seems rather lacking.

On this point, I think Gore's letter is actually far more compelling because it gives us insight into the motivation of Jeff Reisig to really stack the deck against those who would be impacted by the injunction and to prevent them from being able to challenge it.

The Vanguard will continue covering and following the injunction and future court appearances by Rick Gore very closely.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

West Sacramento Community Members Rally Against Gang Injunction

Yesterday afternoon at the courtyard in front of the Yolo County Courthouse in Woodland there was a rally of approximately 20 homeowners and community members from West Sacramento.

The defense was set to submit around 100 affidavits from various residents of West Sacramento that there is no need for the gang injunction. The District Attorney would counter that these affidavits have no bearing on the legal case.

The protesters were there to show their opposition to the police injunction that Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig wants to impose upon the citizens of Broderick and Bryte. Community activists had gathered over 100 declarations from those areas that was due to be presented as part of their evidence for their hearing. They were hoping the injunction will not go further and that testimony from those individuals would allowed.

One of the organizers Julian Perez of the group Citizens Empowering Citizens told the crowd and gathered media:

"Now these gentlemen that have been placed in this action so far, they have their right to due process. However, the District Attorney has named up to four hundred John and Jane Doe's. Subsequent to this action if someone is placed on the gang injunction after it is imposed, they do not get a day in court."

Phil Barrows, retired law enforcement officer responded to a question from Davis Enterprise reporter Lauren Keene on the impact of the gang injunction on the community as a whole:

"Many of the family members, guys who are associated with people identified as gang members can't have their loved ones come over to the house because there may be one or two who are identified as gang members. Consequently if they're together, they violate the gang ordinance which then puts them in jeopardy of being arrested, which in fact they can be arrested at that time."

However, Mr. Barrows argued that the gang injunction really went beyond family impact to the impact on the community and the neighborhoods.

"The other type of impact on the community is what you see on the sign, gentrification. What's happening with West Sacramento, it's not only about a gang injunction. The way we see it, it's about development."

He goes on to argue that the gang injunction and fear of gang violence is used by some to seize land and declare eminent domain.

They have been fighting this gang injunction for three years.

"The reason we are fighting [the gang injunction] is that number one, the District Attorney came out and said that there was so much crime going on in West Sacramento and that because of the injunction that they have control of the crime. Crime was going down."

However as Mr. Barrows points out, crime had been going down three years ago nationally as well as locally. So it is not clear that the gang injunction was the cause of the decrease in crime in West Sacramento.

"In 2006, with this gang injunction still in place, crime went up in West Sacramento. Their not talking about that. What we've been telling them for days now is that the injunction will not have any effect on crime one way or another. It never has in all of the injunctions through out the state."

Mr. Barrows also addressed the issue of the 400 plus John and Jane Does.

"We don't know who those people are and neither does the District Attorney. For three years now they've only been able to serve 23 individuals. So that's a far cry from 400. Because there aren't 400."

One the issues that has been raised repeatedly by those against the gang injunction is that there is no Broderick Boys gang. Phil Barrows explained that at the rally yesterday.

"As a law enforcement officer, I'm hear to tell you that there isn't a Broderick Boys gang. That's not to say that there isn't gang members in West Sacramento, Woodland. The gang they're really looking at is the Norteno Gang, and now they're using the term Norteno. But there's never been a Broderick Boys Gang. That's what we're trying to prove, that there isn't, and because there isn't, and because this injunction has no effect on crime, then we don't need to have an injunction."

While the law is indeed independent of public opinion for the most part, it would be very interesting to get a true gauge of public opinion in West Sacramento about the gang injunction. Both sides assert that they have public support for their positions.

Many who oppose the gang injunction have argued in essence that the police have used it as a tool to harass Latinos in the area regardless of gang affiliation.

On the other hand, proponents have argued that the gang injunction is a valuable tool needed by law enforcement to counter gang activity.

Personally I have always been suspicious of measures that seek to prevent the normal activities that people are allowed to engage in without the due process of law.

The first gang injunction noticed one individual and at least according to Rick Gore, it was intentional by the District Attorney as a means to impose the gang injunction without the ability of those accused of gang members to challenge it.

This was a little better, but still you have 400 John and Jane Doe's who have no change to challenge the injunction once it gets implemented. Furthermore they are using civil law to deprive individuals of liberty.

From a constitutional and a civil liberty standpoint this is simply intolerable regardless of one's position of the merits of a gang injunction in general.

We understand that gang members do very bad things in a community and we wish to punish criminal activity, but we wish to do so within the confines of due process and actual proof in a court of law that individuals have engaged in unlawful gang activities.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

News and Commentary: Major Hearing of the Gang Injunction Slated For Monday

In a press release issued on Friday, it was announced that on Monday in Woodland, lawyers representing defendants in the controversial West Sacramento "gang injunction" case will argue the court should not allow a Preliminary Injunction in the case as requested by the District Attorney.

A rally will occur among homeowners and community members from West Sacramento at the Yolo County Courthouse on Monday at 1 pm prior to a 1:30 PM hearing where the defense team will attempt to submit more than "100 affidavits from residents of West Sacramento claiming there is no need for the so-called "gang injunction," but the DA is arguing that residents should not be allowed to speak."

The defense will also question the veracity of statements issued by police officers.

"Residents of Broderick, many of them Latino, say the injunction is targeting innocent victims. They have outlined abuses by police, including charges that their families are photographed at picnics in the park, and that their children, while riding home on their bicycles, have been harassed by police."

This will be the first major hearing since a letter from a Senior Investigator from the District Attorney's Office disclosed that the District Attorney Jeff Reisig was dishonest with the court in the first go round of the Gang Injunction and its subsequent court challenges. He also admitted that he was pressured to sign an affidavit in support of the gang injunction this time round.

"As for the current and past Gang Injunction, when gathering intelligence, contacting active members and working with Detective Villanueva, I fully supported these efforts. However, after seeing this become your political benchmark, I have watched this injunction grow into something I did not want to be associated with or a part of, since I felt it had lost its original intent and purpose."

He admits efforts to mislead the appellate court with regard to initial efforts at noticing a single individual who was not high up in the Broderick Boys organization.

"I also feel you misled the appellate court when you argued, as an officer of the court, that serving only one person during the initial injunction was intended to result in the word getting out to the rest of the Broderick Boys. You and I know that the opposite was true and Wolfington was not high up in the organization and was not expected to pass the word to the others."

He also reveals reasons why they selected Mr. Wolfington to notice.

"I remember you telling me that you specifically selected Mr. Wolfington for being a less than “smart person”, you said he was “too stupid” to show up for court, he lived out of the area (in Sacramento) and he would likely not tell anyone."

Rick Gore no longer agrees with the current gang injunction nor does he think it is needed. However, "an affidavit in support of the injunction under penalty of perjury. I did not want to sign it as written since it was not prepared by me and I thought portions of my affidavit were untrue." He signed an affidavit of support for the second gang injunction that is currently in the process of being challenged.

He continues:

"I was called in by DDA Linden a few days later, and was told [Reisig] had ordered me to sign this injunction and I had no choice. Knowing I could be fired for not following this order, I signed it after changing some of the language."

Investigator Gore's acknowledgments call into question the veracity of the gang injunction.

Moreover, the District Attorney's office has always maintained that they have full backing of the public in West Sacramento. Recently those claims at the very least have to be called into question as hundreds of residents have put up signs and walked precincts against the gang injunction. From the start they have claimed that the police department has used the gang injunction to target and harass members of the Latino Community, most of whom have little to do with the Broderick Street Boys street gang.

The District Attorney and other supports have pointed to a fall in crime as a result of the gang injunction. Those are difficult claims to maintain at best, however, it would be interesting to see all evidence laid bare for the public to see. Is there evidence that suggests that the gang injunction works beyond anecdotal rhetoric? Is there evidence that the public in the Broderick Street area--non-gang members--support the gang injunction? Let us see that evidence. I do not mean to suggest that we law enforce by public opinion, however, I have simply grown weary of certain claims made by the District Attorney's office--I simply do not find them credible anymore.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

BREAKING NEWS: Senior Investigator For Yolo County District Attorney's Office Accuses Reisig of Ethical Malfeasance And Much More

Concealing Evidence, Deceptions on the Gang Injunction, Questionable Campaign Tactics Highlight the Seven Page Letter Filled with Accusations.

Senior investigator Rick Gore of the Yolo County District Attorney's Office fired off a letter to Jeff Reisig dated March 5, 2008. In that letter, a seven page long memo, he copied the Yolo County Counsel, Yolo County Human Resources, the State Bar of California and the Attorney General of California.

The implications of this letter run deep, if proven to be true. They reach into the controversial gang injunction, the District Attorney Election against Pat Lenzi, efforts to conceal potentially exculpatory evidence, much more.

He writes:

"Since your election as District Attorney of the county, we have had a few major disagreements concerning what I think are ethical and appropriate behavior compared to your beliefs."

Mr. Gore criticized a number of campaign tactics by Jeff Reisig.

"I did not agree with what I perceived as unethical campaign practices during your campaign."

He refused to write a disparaging letter to the editor as some of his colleagues did, and was ostracized in an inappropriate manner by his colleague.

He goes on:

"However, these bullying techniques did work on many and you got many people to write these personal character attacks against her. We had many closed-door discussions about your campaign in your office doing working hours. I remember saying hi to DDA Lenzi in the hallway and you later called me a traitor and told me I was scared of her. You met with our association and secretly forced our support for you, by using the implied coercion that our boss, Dave Henderson, was going to support you, so we had better support you. You told me the first thing you were going to do when elected was to reassign Supervisor Greg Maursin to welfare since he was being a “pussy” and refused to support you. You made good on this threat and reassigned him to welfare fraud investigations as soon as you were elected. On one occasion, in the middle of the workday, I caught Bruce Naliboff searching DDA Lenzi’s locked desk during the election. He told me he was looking for a case file, but we investigators all know attorneys keep case files on their desk, as she did, not in her desk drawers. I thought all of these tactics were inappropriate and told you so."

Rick Gore further outlines efforts to conceal discoverable evidence during a murder trial.

"One major disagreement you and I had was when you tried to hide and conceal discoverable evidence about a material witness and refused to discover evidence during an on-going murder trial."

He continues:

"Bruce Naliboff told me, in front of you, to “put a muzzle” on Randy Skaggs for talking about this discovery issue. You and I had extensive email discussion about this. Lt. Skaggs was in the office when Dave Henderson had to order you to comply with the law and therefore discover the evidence. I am sure the date of the gun test and the date of discovery of the report will show the long delay in providing this evidence, shooting and gun test, to the defense."

He then goes on to strongly criticize Jeff Reisig for his conduct with the gang injunction, something that Mr. Gore was initially involved in and in fact supported.

"As for the current and past Gang Injunction, when gathering intelligence, contacting active members and working with Detective Villanueva, I fully supported these efforts. However, after seeing this become your political benchmark, I have watched this injunction grow into something I did not want to be associated with or a part of, since I felt it had lost its original intent and purpose."

He admits efforts to mislead the appellate court with regard to initial efforts at noticing a single individual who was not high up in the Broderick Boys organization.

"I also feel you misled the appellate court when you argued, as an officer of the court, that serving only one person during the initial injunction was intended to result in the word getting out to the rest of the Broderick Boys. You and I know that the opposite was true and Wolfington was not high up in the organization and was not expected to pass the word to the others."

He also reveals reasons why they selected Mr. Wolfington to notice.

"I remember you telling me that you specifically selected Mr. Wolfington for being a less than “smart person”, you said he was “too stupid” to show up for court, he lived out of the area (in Sacramento) and he would likely not tell anyone."

Rick Gore no longer agrees with the current gang injunction nor does he think it is needed. However, "an affidavit in support of the injunction under penalty of perjury. I did not want to sign it as written since it was not prepared by me and I thought portions of my affidavit were untrue." He signed an affidavit of support for the second gang injunction that is currently in the process of being challenged.

He continues:

"I was called in by DDA Linden a few days later, and was told [Reisig] had ordered me to sign this injunction and I had no choice. Knowing I could be fired for not following this order, I signed it after changing some of the language."

Finally, he outlines an incident involving the Woodland Police Department. Friends of Reisig were victims of some sort of crime. However, rather than allowing the Woodland Police Department to conduct the investigation and come up with findings, he sent his own investigator and therefore inserted himself into Woodland police department's investigation in a case where he had a personal interest.

"I feel you have sent Bruce Naliboff out on two or more on-going investigations, where your friends have called you and asked for your involvement. Having Bruce Naliboff arriving on scene attempting to direct and influence the investigation, because you have a friend involved appears inappropriate to me and other. I believe you wrote a letter to the Woodland Police Chief stating your authority to do what you wanted. This has the appearance of impropriety appears that you are giving preferential treatment your friends and shows a lack of respect to other law enforcement agencies. I believe this has strained the working relationship between this office and Woodland Police Department."

Mr. Gore also highlights deficiencies in the range training program. DA Reisig has directed the Rangemaster and Firearms Instructors not to document deficiencies and problem seen during range training.

"Since your appointment, you have directed us not to list or document deficiencies or problems that we see during range training."

He continues:

"I think it does the investigators and the public a disservice and puts all Rangemasters and trainers in a difficult and precarious situation. I expressed this disagreement the Chief and the senior Rangemaster, but have followed your directions and have not listed any training deficiencies on any documentation since your directive. To my knowledge, after you took office and gave this directive no training deficiency has been documented. The pattern in our records and emails will support this issue. "

The ramifications of this letter are staggering if this is born out. Efforts to conceal evidence from a murder trial, efforts to lie and deceive the court in the gang injunction case, and other such accusations could spell deep trouble for the District Attorney.

It is clear that the State Attorney General and the California Bar need to do thorough independent investigations into these very serious matters.

The Vanguard will continue to follow this developing story and update you as new information comes to the fore.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Challenges Continue With the Gang Injunction

Judge Overrules Challenge to Injunction

One day after Judge Kathleen White overruled a demurrer as premature and not correctly targeted at the complaint, opponents of the gang injunction announced a bold new plan aimed at stripping away the core of the District Attorney and West Sacramento Police's claims about the need for a gang injunction in West Sacramento.

The Woodland Daily Democrat yesterday reported that the challenge to the gang injunction was thrown out by Judge White.

The Democrat reports:

"Defense attorney Mark Merin took issue with the injunction's prohibition on gang members associating with each other. He argued that just because a group or association might at times commit illegal acts does not give the state authority to prohibit them from associating at all and/or for legal purposes.

He drew attention to groups like Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group. Although it routinely engages in illegal acts of blockading abortion clinics, the group cannot be forbidden from associating for legal purposes such as protests and administrative meetings.

"If it were mere membership in an organization, then we would see an injunction against Operation Rescue," Merin said. "We would see an injunction against the Klu Klux Klan. But we see them meeting in public because its protected under the First Amendment."

Defense attorney David Dratman agreed and complained the injunction essentially punished the defendants before having their day in court.

"It's almost like a trial in Alice in Wonderland - 'no, no, no, sentence first, trial afterward,'" Dratman said. "It's overly broad and vague and is not supported by facts."

...

Merin retorted by saying the case cannot commence on flawed premises.

"You can't start off on the wrong foot and at some point hope you get it right - perhaps at the end," Merin said.

Judge White, however, disagreed and overruled the demurrer, keeping in place the complaint and the prosecution's proposed injunction.

"One has to remember this a civil court, not a criminal court," White said. "You said we can't start off on the wrong foot. Well, in civil case, actually, you can." "

Community Fighting Back

Opposition to the Gang Injunction will now go ahead with a bold new plan aimed at stripping away community support--or at the very least the law enforcement community's contention that there is a strong community support.

Organizers plan to "poll" neighbors about the need for the gang injunction. And citizens vow to fight back against police harassment.

According to a press release sent out yesterday afternoon, community members, claiming they are under "attack" by police who pushing the gang injunction, will go door-to-door, starting this weekend in an effort to gain signatures declaring opposition to the gang injunction or as this group calls it a "Proposed POLICE Injunction."

These declarations will ask people if they've really had problems with gangs, as the police claim. And then ask why they believe police and the Yolo County District Attorney are seeking the gang injunction.

These declarations come on the heals of a slew of complaints that they have been harassed by the police including charges that families are photographed at picnics in the park and children have been harassed while riding their bicycles home from school.

Community members will meet at 1 p.m. SATURDAY, at 1100 Carrie St. in West Sacramento. Assistance to them will be provided by other community groups, and members of the ACLU.

Commentary

While the vigilance is to be applauded on the behalf of community groups, it might be more beneficial if an independent investigator could examine some of the charges laid forth by the community against the efforts of the police and the district attorney's office. I have heard from a variety of residents of West Sacramento on this issue over the last two years and frankly it is a very polarized and mixed bag.

The polarization often occurs down racial lines, with many Hispanics claiming that this is sheer harassment, while many whites claim that the Broderick Street Boys are basically street terrorists.

I suspect that the truth is somewhere down the middle, where the police have likely been overzealous in their prosecutions of the effort and the gangs have been a large problem as well.

I do not oppose an injunction per se. I oppose several aspects of the injunction. First it should be a criminal proceeding not a civil one. If you are going to deprive people of liberty, you should have to give them due process of law. That is what the constitution calls for. And if that is the case, then it has to be a criminal proceeding.

This is the fifth amendment:

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Due process of law requires the right to an attorney. And if one cannot afford an attorney, they are to have an attorney appointed by the court. But this right was not held up by the court in a previous ruling around the beginning of this year. The defense attorney vowed however to defend the accused at no cost to them.

I have a big problem with that ruling.

Second, the gang injunction should be based on actual crimes committed rather than association. To the use the example provided in the court case, just because an individual is associated with Operation Rescue, does not mean they have bombed abortion clinics. You have to prove that they personally bombed abortion clinics in order to punish them. If you want to make one of the penalties associated with committing crimes as a gang member, deprivation of liberties, that seems reasonable. If you want to deprive people's liberties who have committed no crimes, I have a problem with that.

Finally, they need to prove the case against individual gang members. This goes back to the originally injunction that was tossed out. They tried to ban association based on a limited number of alleged gang members being notified. They have increased that number, but each person associated with the injunction should have the right to challenge that injunction if it is to effect them. If the judge upholds the gang injunction here, is it merely the defendants it will impact or will impact all alleged gang members?

I understand people's fear of violent crime and gangs, but we have a constitution and due process in this country for a reason and from what I've seen, a threat of gang violence is not a reason to change that system of government.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Gang Injunction Reinstatement Announcement Misleading

If you have read the news, almost all of it coming directly from the spin machines at the Yolo County District Attorney's office, you will have heard that the District Attorney and West Sacramento has won a huge victory with the gang injunction.

In a press release last weekend, the District Attorney Jeff Resig announced:

"A Yolo County Superior Court Judge has re-issued a permanent injunction against specific members of the Broderick Boys criminal street gang operating in West Sacramento, CA. Judge Timothy Fall issued the permanent injunction against nine Broderick Boys gang members on December 19, 2007. The court order creates a “Safety Zone” in the City of West Sacramento in which the named members are prohibited from associating with other gang members in public, trespassing, possessing weapons, possessing graffiti tools, possessing drugs and/or alcohol and/or intimidating witnesses. The named members are also subject to a curfew within the Safety Zone from 10 p.m. until sunrise."

District Attorney Jeff Reisig stated:

“It is impossible to ignore the devastating impact gang activity has in our communities. An effective response must focus on prevention, intervention, education and enforcement. In the big picture, gang injunctions are merely part of this equation. However, when sanctioned and monitored by the courts, gang injunctions are a lawful and powerful tool that responsible civic leaders should consider in appropriate situations. By persistently pursuing this case, City leaders have demonstrated their commitment to public safety in West Sacramento.”

As the Sacramento Bee reported on December 31, 2007:

The nine alleged members – whom prosecutors called "the worst of the worst" – did not appear in civil court earlier to defend themselves against a request for restrictions on their activities. So on Dec. 19, Yolo Superior Court Judge Timothy Fall granted the injunction against them.

"They never showed up," Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Jay Linden said Sunday.

"They're never going to show up," said Linden, who is handling the Broderick Boys case. "And we've done what we can by personally serving them and getting the court order against them."

Sounds good right?

And now the rest of the story, that was not reported in the newspapers or at least not completely.

The case of Victor Dazo, one of the named Broderick Boys defendants. He is one of the nine who did not show up to contest the gang injunction. Now why did he not show up to contest it? He is in prison and probably because of that, is not able to go to court to fight the injunction.

Fine you say, maybe he is a bad guy and deserves to stay in prison. Maybe so, but in most cases in these sorts of cases, courts routinely continue cases due to "good cause" being found when defendants are not in court because they are in prison, rather than issue default rulings against them as we saw in this case.

A default judgment basically means that the individual did not fight the factual allegations of being a gang member, or the gang existing, or the serving of the injunction being proper, etc. In other words, the judge had no other side to look at in this case.

Where am I going with this you might ask?

Well the Sacramento Bee reports:

"On Jan. 31, prosecutors and defense attorneys will be in court again, arguing whether to apply the new injunction to a dozen other individuals.

The hearing will also determine whether the injunction should be broadened – enforced against the Broderick Boys as a criminal street gang and to hundreds of other alleged, unnamed gang members."

What is actually happening on January 31, 2008, is that those defendants who are fighting the injunction will respond in court against the injunction. And if they are successful, the injunction may fall apart against Mr. Dazo and the other eight people who did not respond.

On Jan. 31, prosecutors and defense attorneys will be in court again, arguing whether to apply the new injunction to a dozen other individuals.

The hearing will also determine whether the injunction should be broadened – enforced against the Broderick Boys as a criminal street gang and to hundreds of other alleged, unnamed gang members.

The Bee goes on to report:

"In the meantime, Linden said there was no need to wait to enforce restrictions against those who hadn't bothered to defend themselves – most of whom, the prosecutor said, are previously convicted criminals."

They can start enforcing restriction on these individuals, if the rest of them are not in jail. However, the idea that these individuals did not bother to defend themselves is misleading at best. And the idea that the DA is home free on them, is accurate as well. That will depend on whether the judge upholds the gang injunction this time.

I know a lot of people think we are better off for having gang members or alleged gang members denied their constitutional rights to defend themselves, but from my perspective we have adhere to those rights. It puts all of us at risk of an overzealous prosecutor if we do not.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Gang-Injunction Once Again Grinds To a Halt

Yolo County prosecutors have to go back to the drawing board yet again after another state appeals court struck down very similar language.

Jay-Allen Eisen who is one of several defense attorneys representing some of those named as alleged Broderick Boys said:

"These (gang injunction) cases seem to be coordinated. The complaints look pretty much the same around the state... "They all ask for the same thing, so as the court rules one part of one of these injunctions is okay or is bad, that affects the other cases... They don't tell you what 'outside' means. In your own front yard, in your own backyard? The curfew language is so vague that nobody can understand it."

As I have suggested for sometime on this blog, the West Sacramento Gang Injunction pushes up against constitutionality by its very nature. Instead of trying people for what they have done and can be proven to have done, it attempts to somehow distinguish people in advance and then permanently enjoin them for participating in activities that are permissible to all other citizens.

The problem now is that in order to cover a broad range of activities, the laws have had to be very vague. This had led to legal challenges and portions of laws being thrown out.

For instance, the last gang-injunction was so broad that it only named one individual by name and that individual did not even live in West Sacramento. So the individuals affected eventually by the injunction had no opportunity to challenge it in a court of law.

They also used a portion of the law known as unincorporated association in order to tie gang members together in some sort of common bond, again as a means to make their very association illegal and thus enjoin them from specific activities.

The tragedy of all of this is that there are enough laws on the books already that make gang activities illegal. The difficulty apparently with following those laws is that they have to actually wait for a crime to be committed and then to convict an individual in a court of law.

It would seem to me that if you want to use the law as a preventative rather than reactive measure here, then you simply need to prove with the burden of proof on the prosecution that the individual is an actual and current gang member and if you can prove that, then you have a good chance of having the law upheld.

There seems to be resistance for that. Proponents of this and other gang injunctions have argued that the law has worked and reduced crime. I would counter that the law does not work when it gets repeatedly thrown out by various courts.

And having laws that are written vary similarly are a double-edged sword. On the one hand, there is clearly a joint and collective understanding of how laws need to be written in order to pass constitutional muster.

On the other hand, what we see here is that a law that is thrown out in one location, affects many other locations. When the West Sacramento law got thrown out last summer primarily due to a failure to properly notice defendants, another clause--the unincorporated association clause--got thrown out as well which caused a number of jurisdictions to face either similar challenges or to hastily re-write their laws.

In the end, attempts to skirt constitutional protections put both law breakers and law abiders in peril.

Critics have argued that some of those specifically named are not involved in criminal activity or gangs. Some have turned their lives around. Others are already in prison.

So while there are many who swear by it, one has to wonder if they have actually achieved what they have hoped to achieve and in the meantime, they have to re-write the law yet again--probably not for the last time.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Attorneys for Accused Gang Member Challenge Court Ruling Regarding Court Appointed Attorneys

In the latest development in the controversy over the West Sacramento gang injunction, a group of lawyers and activists declared their intent to seek an order from the court appointing counsel to represent one of the defendants, Mr. Timothy Acuña, a 31-year-old Broderick resident who was served with the proposed injunction while in jail on an unrelated auto theft charge.

Mark E. Merin filed the motion for his law office to defend Mr. Acuña. Several local news organizations such as Fox were there to cover the small event.

In a release sent out by a group lead by Rebecca Sandoval and Reverend Ashiya Odeye who have spearheaded the effort against the Gang Injunction, a motion filed by prominent Sacramento civil rights attorney Mark E. Merin argued that the civil action against the so-called "Broderick Boys" should allow defendants a right to court-appointed counsel. A similar injunction was earlier ruled unconstitutional.

"[Defendants desire] the appointment of counsel to challenge the constitutionality of the injunction...to contest its applicability to [defendants]...and to insure that due process is afforded to everyone"

Without representation, said Merin, the costs of the count-appointed representation would "pale" when compared to the "social costs of an entire community roiled by perceived railroading of vulnerable defendants unable to defend themselves."

Mr. Jimenez stated at the press conference, that they believed that the civil rights of certain individuals had been violated by the police department, and that they are going into court on Monday to ask the judge to appoint counsel to them because they have the right to legal representation.

Attorney Mark J. Reichel said that the case should not be a civil one. “If you are facing jail time, it is not a civil case,” said Reichel.

According to the official motion that was filed, the fourteenth amendment requires appointment of counsel to indigent defendants when the individual faces loss of his physical liberty or personal liberties. This is exactly the situation that Mr. Acuña is in, and yet he has not been appointed counsel for his defense.

The motion further states that the complexity of the proceedings and the issues presented will likely lead to erroneous decision if counsel is not appointed.

Reverend Odeye spoke in defense of the defendant, stating

“he is essentially being charged for owning a red truck. He has never been accused of any gang activity before.”

The lawyers and activists present stated that they felt that the injunction was completely unnecessary for West Sacramento, and that it was really just a way to allow for institutionalized racism. Reverend Odeye went on to elaborate that the part of Sacramento that he lives in has much worse crime and gang activity than West Sacramento, but they don’t have a gang injunction. He therefore questioned why West Sacramento was in need of one.

Meanwhile the Yolo County District Attorney's Office continues to assert what an appellate court previously ruled that the defendants in gang injunctions are not entitled to court-appointed, taxpayer-funded defense.

Deputy District Attorney Jay Linden told the Sacramento Bee:

"Certainly, they don't like that opinion, but my expectation is that the court will follow the higher court rulings."

West Sacramento Mayor in an previous interview with the Vanguard told us this was a difficult issue that requires balance.

"This is a challenging issue, particularly for folks who don’t live in West Sacramento, who for whom it’s just an abstract political philosophy question, for the folks on the street in the community, many of whom are already dealing with issues around poverty and immigration and the gang and its threat to their families is one more insult from a society that in many cases has left them behind."

However he felt that they had been able to address a number of concerns from the original injunction this time around:

"This time around its very different and that’s because of concerns and issues that were raised after the first one was put in place, we conducted a lot of community workshops, listened a lot to civil libertarians, to public defenders, to folks in the neighborhood, to community activists and made some significant changes to it."

The issue of legal representation remains troubling. Ordinarily people in civil court are not afforded court appointed attorneys. However, ordinarily civil penalties do include jail and when they do, people would be in fact afforded court appointed attorneys to defend them. This is a case whereby defendants face potential jail time if the injunction is imposed and they violate the injunction. Most of these individuals are not people with the resources to be able to hire their own attorneys.

He (they) certainly should have the right to challenge the accusation in a court of law and the District Attorney should have the burden of proving that they are indeed members of the Broderick Boys gang. If the evidence is as overwhelming as they claim, that should be an easy sell.

Unlike the Mayor of West Sacramento suggests, I do not see that as merely an abstract political philosophy question, I see it as an issue of paramount importance in our society. Because if they can deny constitutional rights to one class of people out of fear that they will harm others, who is to say they cannot deny rights to all of us. If you are convinced that gangs exist and are a threat in West Sacramento, and I am, then you will not be afraid to allow the due process of law to prove it.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting with the commentary and Simon Efrein covered the event

Interview with 8th Assembly District Candidate Mariko Yamada

The Vanguard sat down last night with Yolo County Superisor Mariko Yamada who represents portions of Davis and a number of rural communities in the Fourth District of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors. She is running for the Democratic Nomination for the 8th Assembly District against West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Clabaldon. The Vanguard interviewed Mayor Cabaldon last week.

• What do you consider the top issues facing the 8th Assembly District? Yolo County? Davis? And what are your priorities if elected to the state legislature?

Alright, well first thanks for having me on the Vanguard. I just want to give you some background on the overarching issues with the 8th Assembly District as well as the county and the City of Davis.

I think that foremost on everyone’s mind is healthcare, and also transportation and education and employment. Those are all interrelated, but those are, I think, the top four issues that that I see before us as the State grapples with some very difficult, very overarching issues. Yolo County, as one of the fifty-eight counties in California, is at the bottom of the property tax revenue retention and that has presented challenges to us as we are going forward into the twenty-first century with all of those overarching issues in play. As it relates to the City of Davis, I think the city and the county will hopefully engage in some very positive discussions as we go forward through this next General Plan process. And, we need to collaborate more and communicate more, so that we can work together on solving some of these overarching issues.

• Can you get into [discuss] some of your priorities?

My priorities are pretty specific and I can share with you some of those that I’ve already put forth into my information and literature as we’ve been moving forward. As you may know, I am a social worker by profession, so with healthcare, I am a proponent of single payer universal. So, if elected to the Legislature, I will be advocating very strongly on that issue. I also have priorities in the areas of adults, aging and disability. And, you may have seen an article in the Davis Enterprise, just this last weekend, about the Aging Summit that we just put on. It’s the first one that Yolo County has had in the area of aging, adult and disability, I think that it is a primary concern of mine, because we’re about thirty years behind in addressing some of those issues, so I’ll be focusing on that as well.

I think I also have some specific proposals about how education and the social work profession can combine and collaborate to solve some of our serious issues within the education system. I think teachers are spending so much time on addressing social problems that they’re not really free to teach. Teachers certainly are not immune to the social problems of their students. But, I think what they went into their profession for was to teach and educate and I think a lot of their time is spent on addressing some of the social problems that children bring with them to school and if we are able to merge and able to have social workers and teachers partner I think that would go a long way into alleviating some of the teaching load and workload issues that teachers face. So, I would be looking at ways of collaborating.

How can the state on the one hand deal with tight budgets while at the same time provide a high level of services to those in most need—the poor, the aging, the disabled, and the children? In short, how can we take care of those most vulnerable?

I think the State has been under funding core services for a number of years now. I think first we had sixteen years of Republican rule followed by two short of a Democratic control of the Legislature and the state house. So, I think that when you have to address sixteen years of priorities that may not be directed to the most vulnerable in our state and our society and then only have a short time to address reorienting those priorities it becomes cumulative. It’s just a cascade on mostly having to catch up. I think that we have to address in a very realistic fashion the under funding of very real core services. Now having said that, I think there are ways to address some of the spending that may not be most appropriate, or the priorities that the state has had is directing money in not the best fashion. I think we are wasting funds in some respects. For example, going back to the healthcare discussion for a moment, we spend more in emergency room services than we would if we were investing in and funding preventive care. So I think it’s not only a matter of under funding, or a matter of not having enough money. The taxpayers are tired of hearing that there is not enough money, but I think that that is part of the problem. There are under funding issues, but the other side of that, is that we have to use the funds that we have in a much smarter fashion.

• How would in your capacity as Assemblywoman, be able to assist the 8th District in bringing funding for these much needed service?

I think it is important, as the representative for this area, to clearly articulate the needs of local government. My background is in local government primarily. I’ve been in three counties and I think that we have to make sure that local priorities are articulated. I think that part of the problem has been the accusation is that when people go to Sacramento to work in the Legislature they forget where they came from - - where their roots are. I’m going to work very hard not to forget that all politics is local and all of our problems are local. If we can persuade enough of our colleagues in the Legislature, to return to the focus of how programs affect everyday people in the district, I think that is part of my commitment and my message at the state level.

One of the big problems facing virtually every local jurisdiction that I cover on a daily basis whether it be the schools, the city, the county, or special districts is a lack of flow of money from the state to local governments, a the same time a large burden has shifted toward those local jurisdictions to meet the service needs of their constituents, how can the state do a better job of helping local government meet the funding needs of local jurisdictions?

Well, that again goes back to my earlier answer, that is, I think that when you have more people in the Legislature that have a local government perspective that doesn’t become a “we – they” discussion, it becomes an “our” discussion. Remembering that counties are political subdivisions of the state, we’re very familiar with what the state is requiring. That’s what counties do. We are the administrative arm of the state, so it’s not as though counties are unfamiliar with what the state requirements are, but we all hear about unfunded mandates. It’s very important for state legislators that they may have the best ideas in the world about how to fix all the problems of the world, but unless they have a local government perspective, and remain close to people and see how their legislation could impact local individuals then I think they’re missing the boat. I think we need to focus our attention on how the state legislation actually affects everyday people and I think that maybe we’ve lost that communication and it’s become a “we / they” and hope is that we make it an “our” situation.

• The other day, I was driving from Davis to Sacramento. It took me 20 minutes on I-80 to get from the highway 113 on ramp to the very far east outskirts of Davis. This region is set to grow a large amount in the coming years. How do you plan to prevent the I-80 Capitol Corridor from becoming the Congestion Corridor?

Well, you know David; I was actually on I-80 tonight, going back and forth, to Solano County, while I’ve been out precinct walking. And, actually the drive this evening, was not too bad, but that is always a gamble. You never know what it’s going to be like on I-80. I think we have made mistakes in the past in terms of how we have cited communities, in terms of how we have grown, and we need to capitalize on the good work that the SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments) Blueprint began. That did not include Solano County. That was a six county study on the other side of the Causeway including Yolo County. I think what we need to do in the 8th Assembly District, because we’re kind of a hybrid, you know, we have an affinity to Sacramento, the region, but we also have an affinity to the Bay Area, because Solano is pulled on the other side. I haven’t seen that we’ve been able to get the Bay Area and the Sacramento Region to be in even a larger regional dialogue that we already are. So, I think what we need to do too, is make sure that we are focusing on transitory development. We need to take a look at -- as lofty as a goal as it is -- we need to look at a commitment at some mass transit.

I’ll digress for a second here. All of the money, the spending that’s been done on the war in Iraq, if we had the money to invest in infrastructure and light rail, we probably could have built light rail from New York to San Francisco. I don’t have those exact figures, but I think our spending priorities are completely upside down. We have made mistakes. We need to stop making the same mistakes to good planning. We need to open up an even a larger dialogue between the Sacramento Region and the Bay Area, because we’re all in this together. And I think too, when we achieve a better jobs / housing balance we’ve got to make sure that people don’t have to drive so far to go to work. I see in the mornings, as I’m on my way to Woodland, going over the Richards overpass – but I avoid the underpass, because I’m going to Woodland – so I’m looping around and going to I-80 to catch 113. I see all of those cars backed up on I-80 off of Richards trying to get to the university. So, there are a lot of people working at the university that either don’t or can’t live in Davis and I think that we need to have a dialogue about that with both our city partners and our county folks and the university.

• What types of proposals would you support in order to help local business succeed in the face of the growing threat of big-box retail?

Well, you know, I was on the “no” side of the Target discussion. I was not a public figure in that, because it was what I considered to be a city vote than rather than a direct county issue. So, I want to make that clear that my opposition to the big box was no so much because I didn’t think that people shouldn’t have a choice, but because to amend the General Plan to chase sales tax revenue, is not the best reason to amend your General Plan. I think your threshold for amending your General Plan has to be a very high threshold. And, I didn’t think that chasing sales tax revenue was a very good reason to amend the General Plan, but now that we know that that ordinance has passed, that provides future opportunities for big box, I think that the Downtown Davis Business Association and the Chamber of Commerce have to work together to ensure that the shopping options for Davis residents remain attractive. We also need to look at the parking issues in downtown Davis. I know that there are a lot of concerns that I’ve heard from visitors as well as residents that parking downtown, is very difficult. So, perhaps we can make this a win / win and arrange for some kind of off site shuttle service into the downtown area. There are some downtowns that actually have some closed off streets and made them only pedestrian friendly or maybe electric vehicle friendly. Maybe we’ll use the new parking lot out at Target to arrange for shuttle service to downtown.

I’m trying to remember what the statistics were on the precinct by precinct vote, but as you know, one of my focuses, as I mentioned earlier, is on seniors and folks with disabilities. I’ve heard that, anecdotally, seniors were supportive of having Target or a Target-like store nearby, so that they didn’t have to drive so far. They didn’t have to go too far to do basic shopping. So now that it’s passed I hope that we can collaborate and make something positive out of it.

Concerns about flooding in California’s Central Valley exploded following the destruction of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. And yet, we continue to develop areas that are flood prone and in flood plains. Do you believe that this is a wise planning practice? What steps do you believe are needed to ensure protection from flood given growing population pressures?

My record on development in the flood plains [was] probably the most clear of anyone in local government. I was the only “no” vote on a major policy related project of the old sugar mill. I was the only “no” vote on the Board of Supervisors and that “no” vote was based on the fact that I actually drove the site three times that what I felt in my heart also matched what I felt in my head. And that was, to approve development behind an uncertified levy that close to where people would be put in harms way - - I just couldn’t in good conscious do that.

I think that development has occurred already in the flood zone. And because some of those mistakes that were made in the past I think it is easy for some policy makers to say, “Well, you know…there’s just one more development we can put in, because it’s already close to the housing, the infrastructure, that’s in existence.” But at some point, you have to say, “No.” At some point you have to say that there is a principle that is involved and that is that you should stop developing behind uncertified levees or in areas in which it’s very clear that the potential for flooding is so great.

I have another hat on the Board of Supervisors, and that is that I am Emergency Services Board Liaison. Remembering the tragedies and horrors of Katrina... We saw those tragedies and horrors played out both on television and in pictorials. I’m actually haunted still by some of those pictures…particularly, the disabled who were not able to get out. I think knowing what we know now, it’s basically unconscionable to approve development behind uncertified levees.

Now, when there are flood protections that a developer or a community can demonstrate. I think that one size does not always fit all. So I want to say in balance, when a developer or a community can come up with a standard of flood protection that can be proven and can be demonstrated then I think that that merits a look. But in principle, I think right now; until we achieve some real strong flood protection for our region we should really put either a moratorium on new development behind the flood plain or in the flood plain.

• How can the 8th Assembly District balance the need for housing and jobs on one hand to accommodate huge projected growth particularly in the western part of the district with need to preserve agricultural land and environmental protection? How should California as a whole plan to deal with growth pressures in the coming decades?

I think if any one individual or one policy maker had the answer to that question we would have answered the question already. I think what I would want to put forth, as the answer to this question, is that it’s the approach that has to be taken rather than, how am I personally going to do it? The approach has to be one of balancing competing needs by listening carefully by listening to all points of view and not making a decision based on political expedience, or who’s yelling the loudest. I think that balancing growth and affordable housing and the environment and farmland…you almost have to do it at the same time on a policy level. You have to do it on a people level. As I said earlier in the interview, about the “one size does not always fit all,” I think that when you get good people around the table to have a rational discussion about how to balance growth, the environment, affordable housing and agriculture --- ‘cause you know you need all four of those in order to make a healthy community.

California is such a complex state. From north to south, from coastal to inland, is very complex already, so I’m not sure I can say how California is going to address it. I can say how I would address it as a representative in the Legislature. I think we need to have that approach of collaborating and getting new partnerships developed, because what I see a lot, in my work at the County, as well as my interactions with the state, there’s such great polarization. Everyone seems to think that their point of view is the only point of view that is correct. And although I am a very liberal and partisan Democrat I also believe that reaching out across the isle to try to work out solutions with people who may not think exactly the way that we think, or that come from a different life experience, or may feel that they only have the right answer – we have to be able to be able to reach out across the isle to try to work out some of these intractable problems.

Social workers start where the client is. We start from the position of looking at the problem as a whole and then try to martial the resources around the problem to fix it. Again, it’s an approach rather than me saying, “I have the solution to all of these problems.” I think that the citizenry doesn’t want to hear promises from people who are running for office they want to find out whether that person has the approach that they feel is consistent with addressing some of these huge problems that we all face.

• The recent dispute between Yolo County and the City of Davis over who should determine growth on the city edges erupted into at times bitter contentiousness. What did you learn from this situation in order to avoid repeat episodes in the future? And as a member of the Assembly what approaches would you take at the state level toward local growth and control?

You know, I think that the issue of who controls growth on the city edge is based upon twenty years of history. The Pass Through Agreement was negotiated first I think in 1987 was a very good agreement, and was renegotiated just a few years ago, and it has served well. I think that the County’s position is that we would like to engage the city in a collaborative discussion.

As far as what we learned, from sometimes a contentious presentation by some of the citizens of Davis, is that we need to establish mechanisms, so that we can have those kinds of discussions before it comes to the Board. I proposed having a Yolo County Council of Governments several years ago. Unfortunately, we did not have Board concurrence to engage in that. But, what struck me about going across the river to attend SACOG meetings -- Sacramento Area Council of Government meetings, and that they’re very specific, they focus really on transportation funding – but the concept of having twenty-two jurisdictions sitting around the same board chambers and discussing issues of mutual concern I thought was a wise way to approach problems. But I always wondered how it was that all of the Yolo County representatives could go across the river to sit around that table before we sat around together in Yolo County. My hope is that we will some day have that mechanism that we can sit down as elected leaders as well as have open forums with the citizens to hear each other, not just hear one side. I look at the county, as the county as a whole, although I do have the privilege of representing ¾ of the City of Davis I also represent an area outside of Davis, which is the second largest farm acreage in Yolo County and a mixture of very diverse interests and rich habitat areas. So in balance, I think that the discussion that occurred at the Board was very unnecessarily contentious. We didn’t have communication mechanisms to engage each other before it got to that point.

You know, the Board did not vote to remove the areas entirely. That vote did fail on a 2 to 3 vote. But, we did remove the areas with hope that we would engage in future discussions with the city. My hope is that we can work that out.

• And as a member of the Assembly what approaches would you take at the state level toward local growth and control?

The state does not regulate local planning decisions, so in terms of regulating where growth will go, there are certain guidelines, but local planning decisions will remain at the local level.

Well, one of the reasons I asked this question, is that there was a bill before the Assembly that died – fortunately – that would have changed the way that Housing Element updates to the General Plan were designed. And, it would have made it so that instead of a ten-year planning period it would be every five years. And so a lot of local governments became concerned that that would have been growth inducing.

I think that Dave Jones (Assemblyman) did have AB70, which not supported by the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, although I did support his bill, because it included some provisions for regulating growth behind the flood plain and that we would have state and local partnership in how those decisions are made. I know most of local government opposed AB70, because they felt that it was the state trying to regulate. But I think that again, it’s that approach of partnering instead of this we / they. It’s always, we / they. I hope we can get to the problems, more of solving the problems in more of a collaborative fashion.

• At your first candidate’s debate, you supported the continuation of the two-thirds requirement for passing the state budget, has the recent budget impasse and the fact that a few members of the minority party held the budget highjacked, changed your view here?

At the first forum the question that was posed was; would you change the current way the budget was handled? Right? My view on that is that we have to preserve some aspect of the protection of the minority. What I would like to see is a two-year budget process with a sixty percent threshold. I think that when you have a two-thirds vote – at that forum the question was posed; would you preserve the current two-thirds majority? It only works to protect when the Democrats are in the majority. But I think that living with a year to year budget process can result in a tyranny of the minority, but a two-year process with a sixty percent threshold would be more fair.

• Everyone is for health care reform. What approach do you most advocate and more importantly, how can you get it passed in the current climate or will you be looking toward 2011 with a Democratic Governor?

As an advocate for single payer universal it may only be achievable if we go to the ballot. I have been participating for the past 18 months on the California State Association of Counties Healthcare Reform Task Force. We have been examining all three of the proposals based on its effects on the county. And, AB8, which was put together as a merged bill from both the Senate and the House is not something that the counties can support, because of its 7.5% employer contribution threshold. In effect, that would affect us, as we are the employer of record for in home support health services providers. These are folks that are actually saving the state money, by performing the work that is needed to keep seniors and disabled individuals in their homes and in their community. So, AB8 was not the answer for us. The Governor’s proposal also, we have some concerns about.

Although, I think shared responsibility, which is part of the Governor’s proposal, is something that I personally can be supportive of, and I know that my friends out in the union community are not supporting shared responsibility, individual mandates. I think that there is a difference between shared responsibility and individual mandate. For those that cannot afford to pay for their own healthcare, counties already are responsible for indigent health. So I think that there are enough elements floating out there. Again, I think if we have the approach of collaborating and making sure that we have a shared discussion about how to solve it that’s how we’re going to get there, but I personally am a proponent of single payer, universal. That is in the context that healthcare is a right not a privilege. You know, there are still a couple of pillars in this whole discussion that need to come to the table, and that is the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry. I know that this is going out there in sort of “dangerous land,” but insurance companies do their business based on that you’re paying for something you hope will not happen. I think we ought to be investing money in what should happen, which is good, preventive healthcare, not waiting until an emergency occurs and when the costs are very high. If we invest more on the front end then we save money on the back end. Also, for a certain segment of our population that have pre-existing conditions - - we have to do away with that – we have to make sure that everyone is able to get healthcare when they need it. I think that there are enough good models throughout the world as well as other places in the country. San Francisco has started and Massachusetts has a system as well, so we need to take the best of what’s already happening to see if we can hammer out a solution. Who would have thought that, here we are in October, and here we are the Legislature is still working on just two small issues; water and health. It’s a symbol that people want to get these issues dealt with. I’m not sure how it’s going to go through the rest of this year. I would rather see something good and something substantial occur rather than something based on political expedience. I think that SB840 we just need to just convert to an initiative and see what the people have to say. The polling shows that the people want universal, single payer healthcare. And also with the Presidential Primary coming in February, February 5th, that is a huge issue for all of the candidates, at least on the Democratic side. We don’t hear too much about healthcare on the Republican side. I hope we get there.

• The original gang injunction was thrown out by the courts. What do you think of efforts to renew the gang injunction—has it been improved upon? How can we balance and where do you balance the concerns between public safety on the one hand and the rights of the accused to have a fair trial with court representation?

I was not supportive of the original gang injunction, because it was vague and unconstitutional. I think the courts proved that to be true. The efforts to reinstate another gang injunction I do believe is still not fair, because I think that if you are going to apply a curfew, or rights to assembly orders in a community it should apply to the whole community not just to one segment. I think that beyond that, my interest is in supporting law enforcement in balance with addressing why there is criminal activity in the first place. We have families that are stretched to the limit, because of their economic situation. We have families that are addressing decades-long issues of poverty, unemployment and sub-standard schools. We have to go to the root causes of what is motivating some people into criminal activity. I think that if you only look at the law enforcement side, and you don’t look at the root causes of what draws some people into criminal activity, then you’re not taking a balanced approach to solving the problem. But I do think that if you’re going to apply restrictions to the citizenry then they have to be applied to everyone and that’s the only way you can achieve some democracy in such an activity.

• What accomplishment on the Yolo County board of Supervisors are you most proud of?

Just one? [laugh] Well if I can give you more than one? Well I have a lot of accomplishments that I’m proud of. I think first of all our Board, and I as one member, have not been afraid to take on the big battles. So you may edit this out, because I’m only limited to one or two, but as I mentioned the other evening, when we were at The Bean Feed, our board has exhibited great courage in taking on issues like the Conway Ranch, SMUD annexation, certainly the General Plan is a very large issue. I think our Board has exhibited the courage to take on the big battles in the face of many pressures. Personal and professional accomplishments; I am very proud of working to get the In Home Supportive Services Public Authority established, working for our most vulnerable seniors and disabled residents. We were the first in the state to achieve that after the state mandate in 1999. I’m also very proud of the work we’ve done to strengthen the Aging and Adult Services Commission. It is now chaired by a member of the Board of Supervisors. It has achieved some parity with the Children and Families Commission. I’m also very proud of ensuring that our ambulance and emergency response services have been settled now for at least ten years. That is a negotiation that I led for the county in collaboration with our emergency services personnel. A lot of people don’t know what the link is between 9-1-1 and the ambulance arriving at your house. It’s actually a county related function, so we had improvements and sustainability in our emergency services. We have also done a lot of work with our Parks Master Plan, with the Grasslands Regional Park. We’re going to be hopefully concluding the acquisition and doubling the size of Grasslands Regional Park, which is in District 4. That will become probably the largest regional park near urban area in Yolo County. Many of our parks are out in the Capay Valley area further West, but Grasslands, is right across the way off of Mace Boulevard, so those are just some of the diverse issues and accomplishments I am most proud of.

• If you could accomplish one thing if elected to the Assembly, what would it be?

I think IHHS (In Home Supportive Services) reform would be at the top of my priority list, because this program already has 400,000 Californians enrolled. The eligibility has not been reviewed for decades, and we’re going to have a growing need to fill to keep people safe in their communities.

It is a program that is actually eating up our realignment dollars and is causing competition amongst social services, public health, and probation. I think that the program needs to be stand alone and I think the workers in that program – we need to take a look at how they can be engaged and blended into perhaps, our retirement system for the state. It is something that you perhaps have not thought of yet, because you’re young and still able bodied, but for silver tsunami end of the age spectrum, it is a glaring need. Actually, the dependency ratio for those of you that are still able to work, there’s going to be greater burdens upon you as the other end of the age cohort progresses it’s shift. So, it’s going to be a top priority of mine along with healthcare reform.

Thanks to my wife Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald for doing the transcription for this interview...

---Doug Paul Davis reporting