How to resolve AdBlock issue?
Refresh this page
How to resolve AdBlock issue?
Refresh this page
Lake County News,California
  • Home
    • Registration Form
  • News
    • Community
      • Obituaries
      • Letters
      • Commentary
    • Education
    • Veterans
    • Police Logs
    • Business
    • Recreation
    • Health
    • Religion
    • Legals
    • Arts & Life
    • Regional
  • Calendar
  • Contact us
    • FAQs
    • Phones, E-Mail
    • Subscribe
  • Advertise Here
  • Login
How to resolve AdBlock issue?
Refresh this page
How to resolve AdBlock issue?
Refresh this page

News

Judge rules for city of Clearlake in Highlands Mutual Water Co. lawsuit

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — On Wednesday the city of Clearlake scored a win in its lawsuit against Highlands Mutual Water Co. when a judge ruled that the water company must hold a new board election and release more information about its operations.

In making his decision, Judge J. David Markham considered the water company’s bylaws, case briefs, arguments, district practice — and even matters of punctuation.

Markham presided over the brief oral arguments in the case on Tuesday afternoon, taking the matter under submission and planning to release the decision by the end of the week, as Lake County News has reported.

Highlands Mutual held its annual shareholder meeting on April 10 to elect a board, at which time the city brought 177 proxy votes in an attempt to have the Clearlake City Council elected.

Instead, Highlands Mutual ruled that its board had been reelected with 217 votes. It also said nearly half of the proxies submitted by the city were not valid because they were from owners of vacant lots that they said are not eligible to vote.

In June, the city of Clearlake filed the lawsuit seeking to have the election set aside and to force Highlands Mutual to release more information about its operations that the city maintained it is entitled to have under state corporation law.

That matter of who was eligible to vote under the definition of “shareholder” was key to the case, and emphasized during Tuesday’s argument.

Brian Hamilton, representing the city, said the water company’s bylaws and articles of incorporation were clear in considering property owners within the water company boundaries as shareholders.

Highlands Mutual’s attorney, Damian Moos, argued that in order to be a shareholder, a property owner must have a connection to the system. He said that the water company has conducted elections using that shareholder definition for decades, and the city had not previously raised an issue with it.

Markham’s reading of Highlands Mutual’s bylaws found that each lot or parcel is entitled to one share in the water company. “The language does not limit shares to those with water connections.”

The ruling noted, “Defendants rely on language in the Articles [of incorporation], conduct of the City, and conduct of the Board of DIrectors of Highlands.”

The articles of incorporation said that the water company’s purpose is “‘to sell and distribute [water] among the stockholders of this corporation who have land reached by a conduit or pipe line of this Company …’ Defendants argue that by adding the words ‘who have land reached by a conduit or pipe line,’ the drafters intended to limit ‘stockholders’ to those who have land reached by a conduit or pipe line.”

However, he said punctuation was an important consideration, explaining that the lack of punctuation or parenthetical phrases — such as, “in other words” or “to-wit” — indicated “the drafters did not intend to convey that meaning.”

Markham further explained, “For example, the drafters could have written, ‘among the stockholders of this corporation, to-wit, those who have land reached by a conduit or pipe line …’ Or they could have written, ‘among the stockholders of this corporation, who have land reached by a conduit or pipe line …’ Even the addition of a single comma could have indicated that the stockholders were limited to owners of land reached by a conduit or pipe line.”

As a result, Markham found that the city’s interpretation of Highlands Water’s bylaws is consistent with the “plain meaning” of the words in the document and the corporation’s stated purpose.

“Allowing unconnected properties to have shares and the right to vote furthers the purpose of Highlands by allowing future water users [to] have a say in how Highlands is managed so as to protect their ability to obtain connections and receive water in the future,” Markham wrote in the seven-page decision.

He found the water company’s understanding “is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the language used.”

The city’s failure to previously enforce its shareholder rights didn’t help the court with the issue of the language interpretation, and the city not taking action earlier “does not add to or detract from the terms used in the Bylaws or Articles,” Markham wrote.

Based on his evaluation of the evidence, Markham concluded that “owners of all lots and parcels, with or without a water connection, are shareholders of Highlands Mutual Water Company.”

As a result, because Highlands did not notice all shareholders of the board of directors election on April 24, Markham said the election was invalid.

Moos argued on Tuesday that Highlands Mutual has no knowledge of who owns the parcels in its territory, and that it would have to send notices to landowners they don’t know exist.

The city, in response, said the recorder’s office would have that information about the parcels.

Despite Highlands Mutual’s objections to having to send out those notices to all property owners in its territory, Markham has ordered the water company to notice a new election to all shareholders, with the election to take place within 45 days of the issuance of the order on Wednesday.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
Details
Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Published: 15 August 2024

Sponsoring Survivorship set for Oct. 5

LAKEPORT, Calif. — Sponsoring Survivorship has announced its 28th annual Run & Walk.

The event will be held on Saturday, Oct. 5, at the Xabatin Community Park Theater.

Online registration is available now at https://sponsoringsurvivorship.com/.

There will be a 2K walk, 5K walk, 5K run and 10K run.

The registration fee is $30 and includes a free t-shirt.

On the day of the event, registration will take place from 7 to 8:30 a.m.

Join them at 8 a.m. as there will be refreshments and raffle prizes.

The event starts at 9 a.m., rain or shine.

Proceeds benefit Lake County women and men in their treatment against breast cancer.

Sponsoring Survivorship expresses thanks to the many business sponsors and the local community.

Donations may be made by check to Sponsoring Survivorship (a nonprofit #45-3321877), and mailed to PO Box 1924, Lakeport, CA 95453.

For more information go to https://sponsoringsurvivorship.com/, or contact Julie Kelley at 707-972-0286 or Brandi Cubbage at 432-614-7707.
Details
Written by: Lake County News reports
Published: 15 August 2024

Schools urged to immediately restrict cell phones in the classroom ahead of the new school year

In a letter to California schools, Gov. Gavin Newsom this week called on every school district to restrict smartphone use in classrooms as the new academic year begins.

In his letter, the governor applauds districts that have already implemented cell phone restrictions, like Los Angeles Unified, and reminded education leaders of the mental health, scholastic, and social risks of cell phone use in classrooms.

In 2019, Gov. Newsom signed AB 272 (Muratsuchi) into law, which grants school districts the authority to regulate the use of smartphones during school hours.

Building on that legislation, he is currently working with the California Legislature to further limit student smartphone use on campuses.

In June, the governor announced efforts to restrict the use of smartphones during the school day.

A copy of the letter can be found here and below:

Dear School Leaders,

As we strive to create the best learning environment for all students this new academic year, I write today to raise an urgent issue that affects their well-being: the pervasive use of smartphones in schools.

Excessive smartphone use among youth is linked to increased anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 72% of high school and 33% of middle school teachers report cell phone distractions as a major problem. Common Sense Media found that 97% of students use their phones during the school day for a median of 43 minutes. Combined with the U.S. Surgeon General’s warning about the risks of social media, it is urgent to provide reasonable guardrails for smartphone use in schools.

As I work with the Legislature to further limit student smartphone use on campus, there is no reason for schools to wait. In 2019, I signed AB 272 (Muratsuchi) into law, which grants school districts the authority to regulate the use of smartphones during school hours. This legislation was a crucial step in our efforts to minimize distractions and foster a more conducive environment for our students to learn. It is imperative that school districts take full advantage of this law to address the growing concerns surrounding student well-being and academic performance.

Leveraging the tools of this law, I urge every school district to act now to restrict smartphone use on campus as we begin the new academic year. The evidence is clear: reducing phone use in class leads to improved concentration, better academic outcomes, and enhanced social interactions. Schools and districts, including Santa Barbara Unified and Bullard High in Fresno, have seen positive impacts of limiting smartphones on campus, with some reporting higher test scores, grades, and student engagement, and less bullying and damage to school facilities. I applaud these districts, and others like LA Unified, for their leadership.

Every classroom should be a place of focus, learning, and growth. Working together, educators, administrators, and parents can create an environment where students are fully engaged in their education, free from the distractions on the phones and pressures of social media. Thank you for your continued dedication to our students and support in making our schools the best they can be.

Sincerely,

Governor Gavin Newsom
Details
Written by: Lake County News reports
Published: 15 August 2024

LGBTQ people have a troubled relationship with police − new survey shows high rates of harassment, abuse and distrust

 

Participants in the 2023 San Francisco Pride parade show their opposition to law enforcement. Chelsea Guglielmino/Getty Images

The LGBTQ community’s long history with law enforcement is so troubled and violent that organizers at some recent Pride parades decided to ban police from marching in the parade.

Throughout the 20th century, the police would routinely raid gay bars, rounding up patrons and taking them to jail. Sometimes, the names and photos of those arrested were published in newspapers – with potentially dire social and economic consequences.

Police departments across the country have taken steps in recent years to improve relations with the LGBTQ community, creating LGBTQ liaison officer positions and mandating sensitivity trainings. Yet raids continue to occur sporadically. In January 2024, police officers entered four gay bars in Seattle unannounced, allegedly taking pictures of customers and citing at least one bartender for having an exposed nipple in violation of city policy.

And that’s not the only reason the relationship between police and LGBTQ people remains fraught.

Insulting language and abuse

I am a sociologist who studies gender and sexuality. To understand LGBTQ people’s experience with and attitudes toward police, I recently conducted a study of LGBTQ-police relations alongside professor Valerie Jenness, my colleague at the University of California, Irvine.

This first-of-its-kind national survey of both LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ people drew on a nationally representative sample of 1,598 people – a gold standard for sociological survey research – followed by in-depth interviews with 59 LGBTQ survey participants.

The results, some of which were recently published in a report co-authored with the American Civil Liberties Union were eye-opening.

Our study found that LGBTQ people still face more police mistreatment than non-LGBTQ people and have less trust in the police. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they are also significantly more reluctant to call the police for help.

At the broadest level, we found that LGBTQ people are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested and held in custody than non-LGBTQ people. Just under 15% of non-LGBTQ respondents had experienced this kind of police-initiated contact in the past year, compared with 21% of LGBTQ people and 33% of transgender respondents.

Those interactions with police are often uglier for LGBTQ people than non-LGBTQ people, especially bisexual, transgender, nonbinary people and queer people – that is, those who identify outside of traditional “gay” and “lesbian” labels. Approximately a quarter of all bisexual and queer survey respondents had experienced insulting language during a police interaction.

These numbers were even higher for transgender and nonbinary people – 45% and 33%, respectively. One transgender woman we interviewed described, for instance, how police officers purposefully used the wrong gender when referring to her, asked her “what” she was and used anti-LGBTQ slurs.

Black transgender people were the most likely to have experienced police violence. Fifty-three percent said they’d been hit, beaten, pushed or otherwise physically assaulted by police, compared with 25% of white transgender respondents. In contrast, only 8% of white cisgender men said that they had been the victims of police brutality.

This data powerfully demonstrate how gender, sexual identity and race all intersect to influence police treatment.

Afraid to call the cops

Given these findings, it is perhaps unsurprising that LGBTQ people, on average, rated the fairness of their police interactions approximately 12% lower than their non-LGBTQ peers.

Again, bisexual and queer people reported lower perceptions of fairness in their police interactions than gay and lesbian people. Meanwhile, transgender and nonbinary people reported worse perceptions of fairness than cisgender LGBQ people.

Consequently, LGBTQ people also reported less trust in the police than their non-LGBTQ counterparts, though this varied significantly by race.

Black and Hispanic LGBTQ people, for example, rated their trust in the police at 2.9 on a 5-point scale; white LGBTQ people rated it at 3.3, a statistically significant difference. Asians reported the highest perceptions of police legitimacy among LGBTQ people, with a 3.6 rating.

Finally, when we asked survey respondents if they would call the police for help if they became victims of a crime, we found that LGBTQ people were less likely to say yes than non-LGBTQ people: 71% compared with 87%.

But again there were meaningful differences among LGBTQ people, too. About 80% of gay and lesbian people said they would report their victimization to police, while only 69% of bisexual, 61% of transgender respondents and 60% of queer people would.

Interestingly, among LGBTQ people, Black respondents were the most likely to say they’d call the police for help, at 77%, followed by 74% of whites and Asians. Hispanics were the least likely, at 58%.

Police ‘more foe than friend’

Putting all of this together, LGBTQ people are significantly likelier to say they see the police as more foe than friend than non-LGBTQ people.

But this top-level takeaway hides important subtle differences in the data. Some members of the LGBTQ community report having had roughly similar experiences with the police as their non-LGBTQ peers, and they have similarly positive perceptions of law enforcement.

White gay men and lesbians, for example, are almost as likely as non-LGBTQ people to call the police for help. Meanwhile, LGBTQ people who are Black, poor or otherwise marginalized have a more troubled relationship with law enforcement in almost every category than their more privileged peers.

Similarly, LGBTQ people of all races fare worse by almost every measure than their non-LGBTQ peers of the same race. Even white lesbian and gay people still face significant mistreatment by police.

Our study underscores that gender and sexuality are vitally important considerations in national conversations on policing.

The LGBTQ community has won important legal rights over the past 30 years, but official violence and oppression have continued. And with more anti-LGBTQ bills emerging across the country, from laws banning gender-affirming care to those prohibiting teachers from discussing LGBTQ issues, it is little wonder that LGBTQ people remain leery of police.

“If the police are told to uphold a law, and that law goes against you fundamentally as a person,” one of our interviewees told us, “you’re not going to support the police.”The Conversation

Stefan Vogler, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Details
Written by: Stefan Vogler, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Published: 15 August 2024
  1. Pomo-inspired art installation completed at Xabatin Community Park
  2. Judge hears arguments in lawsuit between the city of Clearlake, Highlands Mutual Water Co.
  3. New Lake County general plan update survey opens; additional outreach planned

Subcategories

Community

  • 574
  • 575
  • 576
  • 577
  • 578
  • 579
  • 580
  • 581
  • 582
  • 583
How to resolve AdBlock issue?
Refresh this page