Homeless Services Center Colludes With Police and City Attorney

What part of her response don't you understand, Robert? She told you to fuck off. She doesn't answer to you and neither does anyone else. Of course she didn't answer your questions or acquiesce to your demands. She's got an actual job to do, actually helping people who actuallly want to better their lives. Game-playing jackasses like yourself are far down on her list of things to do, as they should be.

Now sit down and shut up.

Hard questions can be annoying and discomforting to bureaucrats intent on keeping discriminatory or embarrassing policies under wraps.

We can see that frighteningly in the case of Julian Assange of Wikileaks.

Part of Martinez's job is to provide relevant information to the homeless and the public about her services, especially if that information bears on her job performance, the ability of homeless people to defend themselves in court,and the public's awareness of senseless and abusive laws and police practices.

Our job is to encourage Martinez to provide the information homeless people need and call her out when she doesn't.

It's always easier to abuse the messenger than to address the message.

If anyone has any answers as to what the waiting list requirements are, why and when the policy of signing off tickets changed, as well as the other issues raised, please post.

she isn't doing her job - get her fired.
same for all the rest of the do
nothing public workers and their inflated pensions.

term limit their asses!

"Don't sh*t where you eat".

And yet, there are you and Becky, filling your pie-holes then complaining ,before you even swallow, about the very people who fed you.

"No salt and pepper?! It's a plot!".

"You won't answer my endless, time consuming demands information to satisfy my needs? And you say it's due to lack of staffing resource and because I'm threatening you? It's a cover-up!".

What I see and hear in you two is the bellowing of dinosaurs. Last of your herd; no longer listened to by your opposition nor followed by any but the newest to town who don't know your history and tactics. And most importantly, and tragically, I think you've let your personal desires and egos take over from the original cause. As a result, your tactics actually do more harm than good to those you propose to help.

I know, you won't believe that, and you'll call me a cop or troll for saying so. But it's my opinion and I stand by it, and it's an opinion substantiated by your actions of the past few years. Ever increasing volume and demands, coupled with decreased support of your followers or impact with the community to further your goals or effect positive change.

When it gets to the point where you're attacking the Homeless Services Directore as a shill? Suggesting that the charity Thanksgiving Dinner was an attempt at religious indoctrination?.....It's become a personal vendetta that lacks results, or credibility.

I went to the HSC web page and it does not appear to be a city/county/state run facility. Looks like a non-profit group. As such I do not think they fall under they FOIA or open records like Robert seems to think they do.

Perhaps the rules are different but perhaps not. A City Councilmember sits on their board and they receive significant City funding.

The point is--why are they so reluctant to answer simple questions--which they'd be required to answer in court anyway? Non-profits also have to respond to subpoenas in criminal cases.

Because you're not a judge and you're not a lawyer. You're going senile, Robert. These are stupid arguments you're making, poorly conceived and poorly presented. A third grader could outwit you at this point.

My reply is the same to you as it is to Becky in her repeated insistence that Thanksgiving Dinner organizers satisfy her curiosity as to why there was no salt or pepper at the dinner:

-Maybe they're not answering because it's none of your business.

-Certainly they're tired of answering your endless questions that are primarily designed to identify a plot or coverup. And so when you don't find one, you ask more slanted or inane questions.

-Definitely because you're irrelevant.

Q: "Perhaps the rules are different but perhaps not. A City Councilmember sits on their board and they receive significant City funding."

A: They sit on the board as private citizens, not as council members. In their capacity as board members of a non-profit they are not obligated to answer any of your questions.

Q: "The point is--why are they so reluctant to answer simple questions--which they'd be required to answer in court anyway? Non-profits also have to respond to subpoenas in criminal cases."

A: You say in your "Norse of HUFF" flyer you are not threatening the director, but you bring up the threat of a lawsuit. So in effect, you are threatening her. If you make good on your threat it's a different situation. But until then she is not required to engage in your tactics.

You've taught people well. They have/are finally figuring out that they don't really need to talk with you, solicit your pinion, or offer up any information.

Santa Cruz owes you nothing. Robert you are on the fast track to no funding at all. Legally NO services need to be provided. Santa Cruz does this because we are a compassionate city. We are getting a lot less compassionate because of the abusers and community leaches that you stick up for.

I encourage others to e-mail Monica and repeat the same simple questions.

Actually it's not a lawsuit that's being threatened, it's just the need of a homeless person to document that he had no alternatives on a particular night by documenting the shelter was full. If the HSC refuses to provide it voluntarily, the homeless person can subpoena the personnel to testify--simple as that.

Monica's e-mail is mmartinez [at] scshelter.org.

Those who support Monica's evasions can also e-mail their cheers--and perhaps donate some dollars to the corporate/government attacks on Wikileaks, while they're at it. Those who don't might want to let her know we're still waiting for the answers.

In the past record requests were spotty at best, sometimes quickly hand written. It is my understanding that as a non profit, they do by law have to answer record requests regarding funding at the very least. I would assume stats too.

I would hope they are still providing letters to those who find the shelter full.

Regardless of peoples thoughts of HUFF, it is vital that homeless here know if they can get a letter saying the shelters are full. We all know they are. That makes this issue relevant no mater who it comes from.

I have had mixed feelings dealing with HSC. When asking simple questions over the phone I got many answers to the same questions. When trying to donate cloths. nice new ones, in the end, we were allowed to hand them out rather then throw them in the free for all bin. Subrosa were kind to let us in and hand out cloths to all who needed them without any fuss.

Well I see that my comments concerning Robert have been deleted. Yup, he's a true "champion" of "free speech", but only if it conforms to what he wants.

Anybody that exposes any inconvenient facts is a "bigot" in "collusion with the Police"

"Subrosa were kind to let us in and hand out cloths to all who needed them without any fuss."


Government: Anarchists Do It Better

Monica,

You believe that Santa Cruz helps the homeless out of the goodness of it's heart?

Actually, Santa Cruz helps the homeless because County Human Service Programs "are funded by federal in addition to state expenditures. These federal dollars are often only available as matching funds to state expenditures."

So tell me, Monica, are you prepared to give back all the federal funding the county receives for it's County Human Services Programs?

How much money are we talking about here, anyway, Monica?

"These funds come from federal sources ($12.0 billion), state sources ($5.6 billion), and county sources ($2.2 billion)."

"With matching funds, $1 in state spending translates into between roughly $3 and $5 in total spending on most of these programs."

Monica, are you proposing the the counties in California give back to the Federal government the $12 billion dollars that was matched to the county's measly $2.2 billion contribution?

And what about the risk of negative outcomes that accompany decreases in CalWORKs funding, such as "child maltreatment, food insecurity, homelessness and negative health outcomes"?

Or what about the fact that "service reductions in many of these programs may result in the following: a higher incidence of homelessness, poverty, malnutrition, substance abuse, violence, and negative health outcomes for toddlers and infants"?

I guess that's okay with you, Monica?

Please read the document entitled:

SPENDING ON COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS IN CALIFORNIA: AN EVALUATION OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS
By
Jon Haveman, Ph.D., Beacon Economics
Eric O’N. Fisher, Ph. D., California Polytechnic State University
Fannie Tseng, Ph.D., Berkeley Policy Associates
Presented to Child and Family Policy Institute of California
March 17, 2009

Excerpts follow:

"2 Program Expenditures: 2007-08
There are a wide variety of county level Human Services Programs in California. These programs range from CalWorks, which provides cash and services, to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS), which provides services that allow aged and disabled clients to remain safely in their homes. In all, $19.8 billion was spent in 2007-08 on county human services in California (Table 2-1). Some $12.2 billion of this spending was in the form of direct payments to families and individuals, including IHSS providers.
These funds come from federal sources ($12.0 billion), state sources ($5.6 billion), and county sources ($2.2 billion).

7 Economic Costs of Negative Outcomes
The discussion above highlights the fact that decreases in CalWORKs funding could increase the risk of negative outcomes such as child maltreatment, food insecurity, homelessness and negative health outcomes. Additionally, decreases in CalWORKs spending could lower the chance that serious barriers to employment such domestic violence, substance abuse and mental illness, will be identified and treated. Research on the economic costs of these negative outcomes show them to be very high and indicate that the savings achieved by decreasing CalWORKs funding could be negated by the societal costs of each negative outcome. In order to portray the individual risks to negative outcomes more clearly, wherever possible, we describe negative outcome costs in terms of costs per negative outcome incident or affected individual.

7.2 Homelessness
Although estimates vary across studies, research on the costs and benefits of programs that provide housing for homeless individuals show that the costs incurred because of homelessness are high. These costs include hospital care to treat illnesses caused by homelessness (including respiratory disorders, trauma, skin disorders, infectious diseases, substance abuse, and mental illness), shelter, incarceration, and detox services. One study conducted in New York found that annual service costs for homeless individuals were over $40,000 per individual (Culhane et al., 2001). A national study of supported housing programs found that the average in-patient hospital cost of providing medical services alone to homeless individuals was $9,000 (Rosenheck, 2004).

Summary and Conclusions
This document explores the economic impact of spending on county human services programs in California. The effects are found to be significant in both the short- and longer-term. In the short-term, expenditure reductions in any of these programs have significant implications for the state economy. The multiplier effects for these programs are found to range between 1.05 and 1.44, meaning that output and employment resulting from human services program expenditures are greater than the expenditures alone would suggest.

In particular, In-Home Supportive Services are found to provide in excess of a 40 percent boost to the local economy. The multipliers for CalWORKs and Food Stamps are also significant and comparable at 1.34 and 1.37, respectively. Other programs, those that provide primarily services and less in the way of cash benefits, are found to have a smaller multiplier effect. The importance of these services, however, should not be diminished by the smaller multipliers that were found. This report discusses the likelihood that service reductions in many of these programs may result in the following: a higher incidence of homelessness, poverty, malnutrition, substance abuse, violence, and negative health outcomes for toddlers and infants. Aside from the toll these harmful circumstances have on the individuals involved, a higher incidence of these maladies produces not only higher economic costs today, but in the future as well. This suggests another sort of multiplier that ought to be included in the analysis – the indirect effect of reducing the demand for services tomorrow by providing them today.

Finally, many of these programs are funded by federal in addition to state expenditures. These federal dollars are often only available as matching funds to state expenditures. The effect of matching funds was found to raise the multiplier for some state spending as high as 7.35. With matching funds, $1 in state spending translates into between roughly $3 and $5 in total spending on most of these programs. The effect on output and employment, and on the
economic stimulus effect of state spending on these programs, is thus significantly magnified.

The Homeless Services Center of Santa Cruz, Ca, lists the following federal and state organizations as their partners and contributors:

Federal Emergency Shelter Grant Program
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Food Stamp Employment and Training Program
State of California Emergency Housing and Assistance Program

Obviously, HSC is receiving both state and federal funding, as listed on it's own website.

Since HSC receives state and federal funding, the HSC director should be required to provide information about the availability of its services upon request.

If the HSC director is unwilling to provide this information upon request, then the HSC should be held responsible for any and all legal costs incurred as a result of the HSC director's refusal to comply with a request for information.

The California Public Records Act (CPRA) is a series of laws designed to guarantee that the public has access to public records of governmental bodies in California. Statutes 6250 - 6270 define the law.

When the law was passed, the California legislature prefaced it by saying, "...access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state".

The California Open Meeting Act (also cited as the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act or the Ralph M. Brown Act) legislates the methods by which public meetings are conducted. Statutes 11120-11132 define the law.

To learn more about how to make a public records request in this state, please see: California FOIA procedures

Features of the law

What records are covered?
* Unless there is a specific statutory exemption, all records of included agencies are subject to the CPRA.
* "Public records" are defined as "any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics."
* Cal. Gov't Code § 6252(g) defines "writing" as "any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds or symbols, or combination thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored."
* However, unlike in some states, such as New York, in California the "mere custody of a writing by a public agency does not make it a public record, but if a record is kept by an officer because it is necessary or convenient to the discharge of his official duty, it is a public record."[15]
* One California court has set apart a category of "purely personal information" that, although it may be in the custody of a government agency, does not fall under the CPRA. "This definition is intended to cover every conceivable kind of record that is involved in the governmental process and will pertain to any new form of record-keeping instrument as it is developed. Only purely personal information unrelated to 'the conduct of the public's business' could be considered exempt from this definition, i.e., the shopping list phoned from home, the letter to a public officer from a friend which is totally void of reference to governmental activities.'"[16]

What agencies are covered?
* Every state office, officer, department, division, bureau, board and commission or other state body or agency is covered by CPRA except the state legislature and the courts.
* Local agencies are covered, including counties, cities, school districts, municipal corporations, districts, political subdivisions, or any board, commission or agency thereof; other local public agencies; or non-profit entities that are legislative bodies of a local agency. See California Government Code §6252(a).

Who may request records?
Anyone can request public documents in California. "[E]very person has a right to inspect any public record". [17]
* California Government Code (CGC) Sec. 6252(c) defines "person" to include any natural person, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, firm or association.
* Foreign and domestic corporations are included in the CPRA's definition of "person."
* Unlike the situation in some states, a plaintiff who files suit against a public agency may utilize the CPRA to obtain documents for use in litigation to the same extent as any other person.

Must a requestor state a purpose?
Whatever the motivation of a person may be in requesting records under CPRA, it is irrelevant in determining whether the records must be provided to that person.[18]

How can records be used?
The CPRA does not say anything about the uses to which public records may be put after being obtained through CPRA.

Fees for records:
The CPRA allows government agencies to charge "fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable."
* If a specific statute defines a specific fee for a certain type of record, that takes precedence over CPRA.
* In 1994, a California court defined "direct costs" to include photocopying costs only.[19]
* For electronic data, "direct cost" is the cost of producing "a copy of a record in an electronic format."

Search fees:
* When a person asks to inspect records, but not copy them, CPRA does not include a provision that allows government agencies to charge for search and retrieval time.
* In 1994, a California court disallowed a 25-cent per-page fee because the agency arrived at the fee by adding staff time into its calculations.

Fee waivers:
Government agencies may reduce or waive fees under the CPRA provision that allows agencies to develop ways to provide greater access than CPRA's minimum standards.

Statutes
The California Public Records Act includes in its definition of public bodies:
1.) "A board, commission, committee, or other multimember body that governs a private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity that either:
(A) Is created by the elected legislative body in order to exercise authority that may lawfully be delegated by the elected governing body to a private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity.
(B) Receives funds from a local agency and the membership of whose governing body includes a member of the legislative body of the local agency appointed to that governing body as a full voting member by the legislative body of the local agency."
2.) "The lessee of any hospital the whole or part of which is first leased pursuant to subdivision (p) of Section 32121 of the Health and Safety Code after January 1, 1994, where the lessee exercises any material authority of a legislative body of a local agency delegated to it by that legislative body whether the lessee is organized and operated by the local agency or by a delegated authority." [1]

Board of Director - Officers

Sally Williams, President
Colin Herrick, Vice President
Theresa Silveira, Secretary
Gloria Ploss, Treasurer

Board of Director -Members

Katherine Beiers
Claudia Brown
Fran Guerrero
Colin Herrick
Jim King
Rusty Kurtz
Esther Levandoski
Sue Lewis
Gloria Ploss
Chris Rebele
Rowland Rebele
Marsha Shanle
Carol Spragens
Lucas Willey

Katherine Beiers
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 420-5020 City Hall
Email: kbeiers [at] cityofsantacruz.com
Current Term Expires: November 6, 2012 after certification of election.

Don Lane
809 Center Street., Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 420-5020 City Hall
Email: dlane [at] cityofsantacruz.com
Current Term Expires: November 6, 2012 after certification of election.

Tony Madrigal
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 420-5020 City Hall
Email: mailto:tmadrigal [at] cityofsantacruz.com
Current Term Expires: November 6, 2012 after certification of election.

Cynthia Mathews
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 420-5020 City Hall
Email: cmathews [at] cityofsantacruz.com
Current Term Expires: November 2, 2010 after certification of election.

Lynn Robinson
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 420-5020 City Hall
Email: lrobinson [at] cityofsantacruz.com
Term Expires: November 2, 2010 after certification of election.

Katherine Beiers is a member of the Board of Directors of the Santa Cruz Shelter. Katherine Beiers is also a member of the Santa Cruz City Council.

The California Public Records Act includes in its definition of public bodies:

1.) "A board, commission, committee, or other multimember body that governs a private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity that either:
(A) Is created by the elected legislative body in order to exercise authority that may lawfully be delegated by the elected governing body to a private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity.
(B) Receives funds from a local agency and the membership of whose governing body includes a member of the legislative body of the local agency appointed to that governing body as a full voting member by the legislative body of the local agency."

California Public Records Act
California FOIA procedures

Response time

The act allows a public body ten days to respond to records requests.

Monica Martinez M.P.A.
Executive Director, Homeless Services Center
Phone: 831-458-6020

Dear Ms. Martinez:

In response to your email dated Tuesday, November 10, 2010, addressed to Robert Norse regarding "Unanswered Questions", this letter is being written to officially request under the California Public Records Act that any and all information regarding the availability of beds at each and every location of the Homeless Services Center located in Santa Cruz, California, between the dates of July 1, 2010 and November 1, 2010, be immediately and promptly provided to HUFF, Robert Norse and any other individual requesting such information. Please also respond to the other questions posed by Robert Norse as mentioned in your email response dated November 10, 2010.

Please provide this information within the ten (10) day response time as specified by the California Public Records Act.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your timely response.

Sincerely,


Carmen, aka Chica Diva
Concerned Citizen

Wow, that's a whole lot of self righteous b.s.

You supplied a lot of information, but none of it applies to the HSC. The HSC is a non-profit and not a government agency. Therefor your FOIA request does not need to be responded to. Furthermore, Beiers and Lane are on the board of the HSC as private citizens. Their approval to the board had nothing to do with their council positions, and the funding the HSC receives from the city is not given with the stipulation that a council member be on the board. Before you make demands and supply information to back it up, it might be to your advantage to actually read and comprehend that information.

It's not clear to me if the HSC is required to answer a Public Records Act or not.

I'm sure it would be required to respond to a subpoena in any Sleeping Ban case if they continue their policy not acknowledging that they're full on nights when they're full.

Still no straight answers from Monica (nor her abusive fans).

Why not?

Maybe she, like the rest of us, is waiting for you to get that Sleeping Ban lawsuit filed, and for the ensuing subpoenas and discovery that you've been threatening for, what is it, the past twenty years?

Why wait? Monica has the info now--that can help homeless defendants today.

It seems unnecessary stonewalling--unless, of course, she fears compromising the City Attorney's Sleeping Ban House of Cards, which relies on the myth that there is adequate shelter in Santa Cruz to justify the ordinance.

Has Monica gotten back to you yet, Robert? I would think that, with the relentless pressure you're putting on her by demanding answers here on Indybay, she must cave sooner or later. I don't see how she can resist. I know that when I want to get something done, I come right here to Indybay and repeatedly post the same thing over and over, until I achieve the desired result. Just yesterday, I levitated my dog using this technique. I'm sure Monica will soon respond, if she hasn't already. Otherwise, I hope you will continue to repeat your demands right here on Indybay, over and over again, until she cracks from the strain.

I don't expect Monica will be reading indybay. But others, including homeless people and advocates, do. Pressure can come from many quarters.

For those interested in a speech I gave to City Council today on this subject, check out the expanded version at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/12/14/18666598.php .

That speech sucks balls, Robert. What the fuck is wrong with you? Sometimes I can't tell if you're really on our side or some sort of mole-plant from the pigs. Jesus Fucking Christ. Get serious, will ya?

Today's headlined Sentinel story calling Martinez "Newsmaker of the Year" at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_16896094?IADID indicates she's doing new "policing" expeditions, recruiting her "no loitering" zone to the public area near the HSC where she has no jurisdiction, and is encouraging slave labor as a condition for homeless services. Not looking good.

Robert you are a multi-millionaire trust-fund inheritor. Why don't YOU get out YOUR checkbook and DO SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY HELPS SOMEONE!!!!!! And no, a bucket of cheap soup doesn't qualify as philanthrophy.

P.S. Censoring this comment proves what a hypocritical piece of shit you really are.