Published
in Rio Linda Elverta News July 28, 2005 - Scroll for other articles
Water Board
kills employee and retiree health benefits
Secret document provides details
by Jay O'Brien
As recommended by their newly-hired health and benefits attorney
Richard Chiurazzi, the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District
(RLECWD) Board of Directors passed a resolution on July 18th
withdrawing from the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act
(PERS medical) effective at the end of the contract year. All of the
present RLECWD employees, plus retirees Mason Adams, Tom Ray, Mike
Phelan and Jerry Wickham are affected by the Board's action.
Chiurazzi said in a document delivered in closed session to the Board,
"It is my advise [sic] to terminate insurance coverage with PERS and to
retain another medical insurance provider. If this is done correctly,
the Board would no longer be responsible for the medical insurance of
retiree[s] Tom Ray and Mason Adams."
In the same document, Chiurazzi suggests that action be taken "...to
request a return of premiums paid to the two former employees..."
Chiurazzi further suggests to the Board that "it may be possible to
eliminate the health insurance payments made on behalf of Jerry Wickum
[sic]." Wickham is a former Director and is a Public Employees'
Retirement System retiree.
The Resolution for withdrawal received aye votes from "Reform Board"
Directors Mary Harris, Darrell Nelson, Jim Strutton and Hal Morris.
Director Doug Cater did not attend the 3 PM meeting.
Former General Manager and Director Mason Adams has lived in Rio Linda
for 72 years, serving first as Director, followed by 21 years as
General Manager. Retiring after 32 years with RLECWD, Adams said he
accepted the "...health package that was presented to me without any
input from me whatsoever." Enduring six major surgeries in the last six
years, Adams said "At the rate I am going a little patience might
handle the whole problem." Adams, who says when he retired the District
held a reserve of $2.5 Million in the bank, mused, "I hope dropping my
medical coverage will turn the District around so it can again become
prosperous."
Tom Ray, who retired as General Manager in 1995, said, "Ten years ago
they were wasting money on attorneys, left and right, and it appears
that they still can't seem to do anything without spending a lot of
money on attorneys. I think it's just plain rotten that they would go
after Mason and I, 75 years old and 65 years old, who actually spent 30
years apiece with the District. We were also heavily involved in
community affairs. They have taken our supplemental insurance away so
they can pay attorney fees."
Chiurazzi's document addresses former General Manager Mike Phelan's
benefits, "I can not advise at this time to remove his insurance
benefit as the District entered into a contract with him which stated
in part that the district would not take any action to... reduce the
benefits available to retiree pursuant to existing CalPERS administered
agreements..." However, based on Chiurazzi's conflicting
recommendation, RLECWD has now canceled all PERS medical benefits.
Phelan, after viewing Chiurazzi's document, asked "Why is the Board
paying for, then ignoring, legal opinions?"
Chiurazzi has suggested that benefit plans from the Association of
California Water Agencies (ACWA) can replace the existing PERS health
benefits plan for the employees. However, the ACWA costs were not
available to the Board when it decided to pull the plug on the PERS
medical plan; RLECWD is leaving one medical plan without selecting a
new one.
The Board action was taken without having comparative cost and benefits
proposals discussed in an open meeting. The employees, ratepayers and
constituents were not provided an opportunity to be heard or voice
their concerns before the decision was made for them by the "Reform
Board".
Further, it has not been determined if all of the present benefits will
be available to the employees, who were not consulted before the Board
took action after a closed-session discussion. Board President Nelson
said, "We're going to take care of the employees."
RLECWD employees are unhappy with this turn of events. Water Utilities
Supervisor Pat Goyet told the Board as he abruptly left the July 18
Board meeting, "I find this ludicrous that my career, and things that
I've worked for, is all being run down because of Mary's witch hunt for
Jerry Wickham." Other employees interviewed expressed support for
Goyet's statement and for his rapid exit from the Board meeting.
Chiurazzi's closed-session document suggests the District shift the 7%
payment the District is making into the employees' retirement funds to
the employees, which would result in more than a 7% reduction in
employee take-home pay.
Attorney Chiurazzi was selected by Mary Harris and Jim Strutton, the
RLECWD Board's ad hoc health benefits committee appointed by Board
President Nelson. At the March 3rd RLECWD Board meeting, Chiurazzi
said, as recounted in the minutes, "When Director Harris approached him
with this issue he thought it would be perfect for someone who is
semi-retired with 25 years of labor law experience." He was
originally hired based on a $6,000 maximum commitment, and was tasked
to review the details of RLECWD health benefits.
The "Reform Board" didn't stop there; Chiurazzi has now been hired as
health benefits attorney, in place of the general counsel of the
District. The $6,000 has turned out to be just the start of payments to
Chiurazzi. His error-filled, poorly identified and unsecured
document given to the Board in closed session and leaked to The NEWS
reflects on his ability to do the job the Board has tasked him to
perform. See related article, "Secret document
leaked".
Chiurazzi's "attorney-client privilege" document alleges conflict of
interest law violations by past General Manager Mike Phelan and past
Director Wickham. As his government tenure includes years in law
enforcement, Phelan says, "An unfounded felony accusation like this is
a serious problem should I ever need to seek employment - for instance,
should I lose my health insurance."
Wickham, accused by Chiurazzi of "voting on a matter which was clearly
a personal financial conflict of interest", said "When we voted to
adopt the PERS health plan, I didn't have a clue it could apply to me.
You've got to know about it before you can have a conflict of interest."
Wickham, who says he needs the medical insurance now because his knee
joint has to be replaced, declared "I'm really tired of Mary Harris'
witch hunt."
Chiurazzi's document, that he says The NEWS should not possess,
concludes that RLECWD should adopt a conflict of interest code. If
Chiurazzi, with his 25 years of experience, had done his homework,
including a review of District policies, perhaps he would have read the
District's Conflict of Interest Code in its Policy Manual. It was
recommended by Phelan and adopted in September 1996.
The RLECWD Board of Directors could reconsider their action to dump
PERS medical at their August 15 meeting, scheduled for 7 PM at the
Depot/Visitors Center, 6730 Front Street, Rio Linda. The public is
welcome at Board meetings.
Published
in Rio Linda Elverta News July 28, 2005 - Scroll for other articles
Secret document leaked
Attorney Chiurazzi reacts
by Jay O'Brien
The NEWS received document pages apparently signed by attorney Richard
Chiurazzi. They appeared to be something related to the Rio
Linda/Elverta Community Water District (RLECWD). As the pages were rife
with spelling and grammar errors, The NEWS suspected the documents may
not have been prepared by a professional lawyer.
To verify the validity of the document, a copy was handed to
Chiurazzi at the RLECWD's July 18th afternoon Special Board meeting,
and he was asked if it was his. He replied "...it appears that this is
some pages of a document that I delivered in closed session to the
Board, protected by the attorney-client privilege. It was meant for
only Board members, protected by the attorney-client privilege, and not
to be disclosed to anyone else."
Chiurazzi continued, "So, I might want to ask you, I'm not going to
make any comment upon this because this is protected by the
attorney-client privilege, I might want to ask you, who gave it to you
and whether or not you committed any criminal misconduct by obtaining a
copy of it." When asked to return the document, Chiurazzi refused,
saying "Well, I'm not going to give it back to you, because it's not,
you shouldn't be in possession of it to begin with." Chiurazzi
confiscated the document he was handed by The NEWS.
Chiurazzi apparently wasn't concerned about security of his document,
as he did not mark his document pages "confidential" or
"attorney-client privilege" or in any other way that would indicate the
sensitivity of the document. Chiurazzi's lack of control of his
document resulted in a copy showing up for review by The NEWS.
Chiurazzi clearly and quickly validated his authorship during the Board
meeting. Had he merely handed the pages back, perhaps saying "I see no
reason to respond", The NEWS would have a lot less to write about.
The fact that the document pages were leaked will no doubt extend Mr.
Chiurazzi's tenure with RLECWD, at an unknown additional cost for his
services.
See related article, "Water Board kills employee and
retiree health benefits".
The document pages received by The NEWS may be viewed at http://rlenews.com/05/050728a.html .
Published
in Rio Linda Elverta News July 28, 2005 - Scroll for other articles
PG&E Discriminates against SMUD
customers
by Jay O'Brien
I use gas only for heating. During the four months or more of summer, I
close the gas valve and use no gas. In the past, PG&E would tell me
that my gas bill for those months was zero.
PG&E managed to get a new tariff enacted, effective July 1, 2005.
PG&E is now charging me $3.25 per month as a "minimum
transportation charge", even if I use no gas. The new tariff was
enacted lawfully, but PG&E is selectively imposing it on seasonal
gas customers, like me.
I called PG&E to inquire about the new charge. I was told that if I
was also a PG&E electric customer, they would "close" my gas
account, stopping the $3.25/month. Then, when I wanted to use gas again
after the summer, they would enable the gas part of my account. Simple
for them to do, and no charge to me.
However, being a SMUD customer, I do not use PG&E electricity. If
they closed the gas account to allow me to avoid the $3.25 per month
charge, after 30 days the account would be deleted. I would then have
to re-qualify as a new customer, providing permission for PG&E to
do a credit check. Once given my new account number, I would then go
through the hassle of re-establishing my automatic debit arrangement
with my bank that allows PG&E to automatically obtain payment from
my bank account.
I feel that if PG&E will keep the gas account open beyond 30 days
for their electric customers, allowing them to avoid the transportation
charge, they should do the same for me. It is worth $3.25 per month to
me to avoid the credit check and bank issue. However, if the ability to
suspend the charge is available to the PG&E electric customers, it
should also be available to me.
I have mailed a complaint to the California Public Utilities Commission.
Check your PG&E bill!
jump to top of page