Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01211997 - D4 DA THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Date: January 21, 1997 Matter of Record SUBJECT: Public Comment The following people spoke before the Board of Supervisors during Public Comment: Dennis Thomas, Groundswell Against Nuclear Waste, Pleasant Hill, commented in opposition to the transportation of nuclear waste in this County; Wes Nicholson, Groundswell Against Nuclear Waste, 4810 Myrtle Drive, Concord, urged the Board to participate in "National Call In Day", opposing nuclear weapons, on January 27, 1997; Al Simmons, 2936 Linden Avenue, Berkeley, AMARCH, commented on recent state legislation regarding juveniles, and submitted video tapes for review. Pete Williams, 237 Ivy Drive, Orinda, commented on the scheduling of closed session matters. THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY NO BOARD ACTION WAS TAKEN "Sunflowers instead of missiles in the soil P(l6TAGE will ensure peace for future generations..." 20 —U.S.Secretary of Defense William Perry on June 4, 1996, the day the Ukraine officially gave up its nuclear weapons. STAMP Russian and Ukrainian defense secretaries joined him in a ceremony planting sunflowers on a former missile silo. °f President Bill Clinton The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, DC 20500 r "A world free of the THREAT of nuclear weapons is necessarily a world DEVOID of nuclear weapons." --Retired Air Force General Lee Butler, former commander in chief of U.S. Strategic Air Command,in charge of U.S. nuclear forces until two years ago. (Remarks made December 4, 1996 to the National Press Club.) Dear President Clinton, I couldn't agree more with General Butler! "Nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous, hugely expensive, militarily inefficient and morally indefensible. " Please art these items at the tom your checklist: O Cancel the "subcritical"tests at the Nevada Test Site O Stop the National Ignition Facility (NIF9 and curtail the bloated "Stockpile Stewardship and Management"Program O Seek immediate global action to take all nuclear forces off alert O Initiate multilateral negotiations on a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons Sincerely, Name.............................................................................................. .. . .. Address....................................... ............... . ... .... ......... . .. . q,040 telt doh or1(:fS 1 opt! M L i IL KA u�� 13N AtTgA<k 19 MAR- z NATI CALL=IN International Call t® Acti®n Cancel the 5ubcri ti cal Tests l 5uppor t the Abolition of Nuclear .Weapons! JANUARY 27, 1997:-CALL-PRESIDEN-T-CLINTON_at + (202) 456-1414.1 Te/l him to cone/the subcritica/tests at the.Nevada Test Site and curtail the bloated ..'Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program (described be)6w1. TODAY: Write to the President. (Jge him to imme�dvte/y eek global aciion to`fake a//nuc%ar forces off alert, on, to initiate multilvieraf`negrohaiions on ar trea►ty io`eliminote /rude+ar wedpon� The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, QC 20500;USA JANUARY 20:::- 27: SEN© A MESSAGE OF SOLIDARITY TO ABOLITION 2040 ANS HM TAU lthe /ocolhost groupl IN TANITi of FAX: + (689) 572 8.80 JANUARY 27: ©R.GANfZEIPARTICIPATE IN A VIGIL IN YOUR COMMUNITY. In Livermore, vt the corned of East.4 v� & vt::,+ R from 5 . p m lfor;more mformatiorr call Tn Vi' 06.of E5I01 437148.1 In amine bt the downtown rar/roadstatton nuc%ar waste ship�rrent rautel from 4� 6, mForlore • . rnformatbn co//Groundswell goomsE lYu%ar Waste at 1.5T0182T QQ821' WHAT: A day of internationally coordinated actions January 27, 1997 to oppose the resumption of nuclear testing by the United States and call for the abolition of nuclear weapons. WHY: The U.S. has announced plans to conduct "subcritical" underground nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site as part of a larger program to maintain and expand its nuclear weapons capabilities under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. January 27 marks the 46th anniversary of the first U.S. nuclear test in Nevada, and the 1st anniversary of the last French nuclear test in the Pacific. Indigenous youth of French Polynesia (Tahiti) have called for a worldwide vigil on January 27 to support the movement to abolish all nuclear weapons. WHERE: In the U.S., January 27 has been designated as a national call-in day to President Clinton. In Tahiti, the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons will be concluding its international meeting. On January 27 a press conference will be held to announce the results of the first independent health study of Tahitian test site workers, and the outcome of the Abolition 2000 conference. NGOs everywhere are encouraged to: 1) call on their national leaders to oppose the U.S. subcritical tests, take nuclear forces off alert, and support negotiations on a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons; 2) send messages ONAI DAY of solidarity to those gathered in Tahiti, and 3) hold vigils in their own communities to support and publicize these objectives. The sunflower is the symbol for Abolition 2000! fid' THE COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY On September 24, 1996 President Clinton signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty(CTBT). Two days later, John Holum, Director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, declared: "[Ujnder customary international law as codified in Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,a signatory is obliged, pending ratification,to refrain from any action that would defeat its purpose... any further testing would defeat the CTBT's object and purpose... if a country signs the CTBT, it is legally bound not to test, whether or not it has ratified, and whether or not the Treaty is in force." The CTBT does not define a nuclear test, but it is understood to ban nuclear explosions with measurable fission yields. On October 8, less than two weeks after the U.S. signed the CTBT,the Department of Energy(DOE)announced its desire to conduct so-called "subcritical" tests, underground at the Nevada Test Site. The proposal was finalized on December 9. While subcritical tests may not violate the "letter"of the CTBT, they are antithetical to its spirit and undermine prospects for its global entry-into-force. WHAT IS A SUBCRITICAL TEST? Instead of preparing to close the Nevada Test Site, the DOE has awarded a 5-year S1.5 billion contract to the Bechtel Corporation to manage the test site; to maintain the capability to perform full scale underground tests there and conduct "sub-critical" underground tests to assess the effects of new manufacturing techniques on weapon performance. According to the DOE,subcritical tests will involve 50 to 500 pounds of high explosive charge and special nuclear material such as weapon-grade plutonium.But they will be designed to occur without self-sustaining nuclear reactions or nuclear explosions, thus the term, "subcritical." The subcriticals are slated to take place some 980 feet underground at the Nevada Test Site. Thanks largely to protests from NGOs and foreign governments,these tests,originally scheduled to begin in June and September 1996,were quietly postponed in order to minimize controversy about their purpose during the CTBT negotiations. No new dates have been announced. Subcritical tests are only a small part of the huge, deceptively named, "Stockpile Stewardship and Management"Program, intended to maintain and expand U.S. nuclear weapons capabilities well into the 21st century. In order to preserve the capacity to maintain,test, modify, design and produce nuclear weapons, with or without underground explosions, the U.S. is building up its already vast labomtory4msed infrastructure.Nuclear weapons design will be advanced through computer simulations coupled with archived data from more than 1000 past tests and new diagnostic information obtained from inertial confinement fusion (including the National Ignition Facility (NIF)at Livermore Lab and the French Megajoule Laser in Bordeaux), pulsed power fusion experiments,above-ground.hydrodynamic.explosions (including at the Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrotest (DARHT)Facility at Los Alamos Lab),and subcritical "zero yield" underground tests at the Nevada Test Site. A rebuilt U.S. nucleai weapons design and manufacturing complex will be capable of turning out 150 weapons or more a year. Over the next decade, the U.S. plans to invest S40 billion in the SS&M Program—more than the DOE's Cold War annual spending average for nuclear weapons research, development, testing,production and disassembly. "SUBCRITICAL" DOES NOT MEAN BENEATH CRITICISM! The subcritical tests and the SS&M Program of which they are an integral part demonstrate a continuing commitment to nuclear weapons as core instruments of U.S.national policy. That commitment influences other countries' assessment of the desirability of nuclear weapons, and more generally endangers the long-term viability of the nonproliferation regime by maintaining an international double standard.Despite U.S. claims that the subcritical tests will not violate the terms of the recently-signed CTBT,they will create severe verification problems and threaten the treaty's global entry-into-force. (The CTBT agreed to by the U.S. and now signed by over 130 countries requires India's participation in the treaty. India has made it clear that it will not sign the CTBT without a demonstrable commitment to disarmament by the nuclear weapon states.)Even without entry-into-force, the subcritical tests will weaken the integrity of the CTBT,which was historically intended to prevent further modernization and development of nuclear weapons. ABOLITION 2000, A GLOBAL NETWORK TO ELIMINATE NUCLEAR WEAPONS Abolition 2000 is a dynamic, growing, and truly international citizens'movement calling for conclusion, by the turn of the century, of a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons within a timebound framework With nearly 700 organizational partners on every continent,Abolition 2000 includes national and regional NGO networks the world over. At the invitation of Hiti Tau,an umbrella NGO of the indigenous peoples of French Polynesia, Abolition 2000 will hold its annual meeting in Tahiti in January 1997. In 1995,international outrage ended French nuclear testing in the South Pacific. We must mobilize now to cancel the subcriticals! Let us work together to end nuclear testing everywhere and enter the 21st century with a plan for the elimination of nuclear weapons. For more information: Western States Legal Foundation, 1440 Broadway, Suite 500, Oakland, CA 94612 USA Telephone: +(510) 839-5877 Far: +(510 )839-5397 E-mail: WSLF@igc.apc.org voFsU �gR§ Assembly Bill No. 1355 CHAPTER 977 An act to add Section 820.21 to the Government Code,relating to liability. [Approved by Governor October 16,1995.Filed with Secretary of State October 16,1995.] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 1355, Knowles. Tort liability: public employees. Existing law provides generally that a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his or her act or omission where it was the result of the exercise of his or her discretion, whether or not that discretion was abused;but that he or she is liable for injury caused by his or her actual fraud,corruption, or actual malice. This bill would provide that the civil immunity of juvenile court social workers,child protection workers,and other public employees authorized to initiate or conduct investigations or proceedings pursuant to the juvenile court law shall not extend to acts of perjury, fabrication of evidence, failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, or obtaining testimony by duress, fraud, or undue influence if any of these acts are committed with malice, as defined. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 820.21 is added to the Government Code,to read: 820.21. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, the civil immunity of juvenile court social workers, child protection workers, and other public employees authorized to initiate or conduct investigations or proceedings pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 200) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code shall not extend to any of the following, if committed with malice: (1) Perjury. (2) Fabrication of evidence. (3) Failure to disclose known exculpatory evidence. (4) Obtaining testimony by duress, as defined in Section 1569 of the Civil Code,fraud,as defined in either Section 1572 or Section 1573 of the Civil Code, or undue influence, as defined in Section 1575 of the Civil Code. (b) As used in this section, "malice" means conduct that is intended by the person described in subdivision (a) to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct that is carried on by the person 95 Ch. 977 —2— described 2—described in subdivision(a) with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. O 95. SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses 1020 N Street, Suite 524 (916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) 327-4478 THIRD READING Bill No: AB 1355 Author: Knowles (R) , et al Amended: 9/8/95 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 8/22/95 AYES: Campbell, Lockyer, Petris, Wright, Leslie, Calderon NOT VOTING: Mello, O'Connell, Solis SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-3, 8/31/95 AYES: Johnston, Calderon, Kelley, Leonard, Leslie, Lewis, Mountjoy, NOES, Hughes, Killea, Mello NOT VOTING: Alquist, Dills, Polanco, ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 41-34, 5/1/95 - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Liability: juvenile social workers SOURCE: Author DIGEST: This bill specifies that immunity from prosecution does not include specified acts on the part of a juvenile social worker, child protection worker or other public employees. Senate Floor Amendments of 9/8/95 recast provisions that are not covered by immunity. ANALYSIS: Existing law confers an absolute immunity on various persons who are required by law to file reports under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act. Other CONTINUED AB 1355 Page 2 persons who file reports under the Act, but who are not required to do so, are liable only if the report is false, and the person knew the report was false, or recklessly disregarded the truth of falsity of the report. (Penal Code Section 11172.1 Existing law also immunizes various persons who, in good faith, file reports under the Child Welfare Services Act. It also immunizes the same persons for "participation in any judicial proceeding resulting from" such a report. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section 165113.1 This bill provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of the law, the civil immunity of juvenile court social workers, child protection workers, and other public employees authorized to initiate or conduct investigations or proceedings shall not extend to any of the following: 1.Perjury. 2.Fabrication of evidence. 3.Failure to disclose known exculpatory evidence. 4.Obtaining testimony by duress. As used in this section, omaliceo means conduct that is intended by the person described in subdivision (a) to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct that is carried on by the person described in subdivision (a) with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. Note: This bill has been amended in the Senate Judiciary Committee. As it was voted on in the Assembly, the immunization was the same as the civil immunity provided to peace officers. Background In Superior Court v. Goodfriend (1993) 169 Cal.App.4th 169, the Fourth District held that the Act (specifically Penal Code Section 11172) " . . . is a reporting statute and its protection runs to reporting: it does not apply to CONTINUED AB 1355 Page 3 activities that continue more than two years after the initial report of abuse by parties who are not acting as reporters. " [p. 174.1 The Goodfriend case arose from the Wade family's experience with the dependency system and has become infamous as an example of how much emotional and financial harm the current system can cause to a child and her family. The following account is taken from the Fourth District's opinion: On the morning of May 9, 1989, eight-year-old Alicia Wade complained of pain when she went to the bathroom. Her parents brought her to the Navy medical unit by 8:30 a.m. The family was then escorted to Children's Hospital where staff determined that Alicia had been raped and sodomized, and filed a report under the Act. Alicia stated that a man had come through her bedroom window and hurt her. Late that afternoon, a hospital worker and detective accused Alicia's father of the molest. In an attempt to prove the father's innocence, the parents agreed to have their home searched and talk with the police, and the father submitted to a rape test, a DNA test and three polygraph tests. By May 11, the Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a dependency action and the following day had Alicia placed in temporary foster care. Meanwhile, DSS investigative employee Diane Anderson interviewed the parents and referred them to a private family counselor, Kathleen Goodfriend. At her first session with the family on May 11, Goodfriend accused the father of the assault. In July 1989, the family's attorney advised them to plead nolo contendere to a charge of neglect and assured them all other charges would be dropped. The attorney added that, assuming the parents passed a psychological evaluation and found a 24-hour caretaker, Alicia would be home within a week. The parents reluctantly accepted the plea bargain in order to get their daughter home and put the experience behind them. Notwithstanding that the psychological exam was favorable and the family had provided the names of three 24-hour caretakers, counselor Goodfriend refused to CONTINUED AB 1355 Page 4 cooperate and DSS later backed out of the agreement. For over a year after her attack, Alicia stood firm in her insistence that her father was not the assailant. Further, the same month that Alicia was attacked, a man entered the bedroom window of a four-year-old girl living across the street from the Wades, abducting the girl and attempting to rape her. The man, Carder, a registered sex offender, was arrested in June, 1989 and by August was charged with four criminal cases involving minors, but not with the Wade case. Goodfriend, the District Attorney and DSS were all aware of the Carder cases. Goodfriend and the foster-parents put continuing pressure on Alicia to "confess" that her father was the one who assaulted her. Directing Alicia to say her father was guilty, Goodfriend repeatedly told the child: (1) she knew Alicia's father had molested her; (2) Alicia would feel a lot better if she admitted it; (3) the "story" Alicia had been telling was not believable; (4) Alicia's mother had been assaulted by Alicia's grandfather; and (5) if she wanted to go home, Alicia would have to say her father was the perpetrator. At Goodfriend's direction, every night when she was put to bed, the foster-mother told Alicia "over and over again" that Alicia's father had raped her. During all this time, Alicia was completely cut off from her family. Her mother did not see her for a full year and her father did not see her for two years. Finally, Alicia yielded in June 1990, finally stating that her father was guilty. She testified against her father in July. In September, Alicia, her mother and brother entered "conjoint" therapy with Goodfriend. By November, the mother was so overwhelmed that she attempted suicide and was placed in a locked ward until January, 1991. Alicia's father was arrested in December, 1990. New counsel for father had Alicia's nightgown, worn the night she was raped, tested and the DNA test proved that her father could not have committed the rape and, instead, Carder was among the nine percent of the population whose DNA would have matched that found on Alicia's nightgown. CONTINUED AB 1355 Page 5 The Wade family sued and the trial court sustained the demurrers of the defendants based upon the various immunities provided in law. In their petition for writ of mandate, the family argued that, "the courts have moved beyond the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, Penal Code sections 11164 et seq. , to come full circle so those who abuse children in the name of preventing abuse are immunized by the very law meant to protect children. [p. 173 .] In finding liability on the part of Goodfriend and the foster-parents, the Fourth District noted that they came onto the scene after the initial reporting of abuse and "voluntarily assumed roles of those who, having received the report and determined the identity of the perpetrator, search for corroboration and/or attempt to pressure a witness to get a conviction. " [p.176.] The demurrers to all causes of action against the social worker and DSS were sustained because of the statutory immunity. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com. : No Local: No SUPPORT: (Verified 9/8/95) Child and Family Protection Association Coalition of Parent Support Fathers' Rights and Equality Exchange Committee on Moral Concerns Grandparents as Parents OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/8/95) County Welfare Directors National Association of Social Workers California State Association of Counties California Independent Public Employees Legislative Council, Inc. Service Employees' International Union, Calif. State Council County of Sacramento CONTINUED AB 1355 Page 6 ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author's office believes that the absolute immunity of social workers, when coupled with their power and influence in a dependency case, has created a lack of checks that is needed to maintain an appropriate balance between these two types of harm. The author states it is his intent in this bill to provide that needed balance. Supporters argue that judges simply "rubber stamp" the report and recommendations of the social workers in these cases. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The concern raised by opponents, and noted by the courts prior to Goodfriend, is that any limitation on their immunity would make social workers too fearful of lawsuits to appropriately intervene to protect an endangered child. Opponents state that the decision to remove a child from his or her home, in the first instance, is made with little that is immediately verifiable in the way of information and the possibility of harm to the child may be such that a social worker would generally err on the side of caution and remove the child. ASSEMBLY FLOOR: AYES: Aguiar, Alby, Baldwin, Battin, Boland, Bordonaro, Bowler, Brewer, Brulte, Conroy, Cortese, Cunneen, Firestone, Frusetta, Goldsmith, Granlund, Harvey, Hawkins, Hoge, House, Isenberg, Johnson, Kaloogian, Knight, Knowles, Kuykendall, McPherson, Morrissey, Morrow, Olberg, Poochigian, Pringle, Rainey, Richter, Rogan, Setencich, Speier, Takasugi, Thompson, Weggeland, Woods NOES: Alpert, Archie-Hudson, Baca, Bates, Bowen, V. Brown, Burton, Bustamante, Caldera, Campbell, Cannella, Davis, Figueroa, Friedman, Gallegos, Hannigan, Hauser, Horcher, Katz, Knox, Kuehl, Lee, Machado, Martinez, Mazzoni, McDonald, K. Murray, W. Murray, Napolitano, Sher, Sweeney, Tucker, Villaraigosa, W. Brown NOT VOTING: Allen, Ducheny, Escutia, Vasconcellos CONTINUED RJG:lm 9/11/95 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE