How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
News
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
LAKEPORT, Calif. – Nurses at Sutter Lakeside Hospital are moving forward with a strike on Tuesday after they failed to come to an agreement on a new contract with hospital management last week.
The strike is set to take place from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Tuesday, with a rally planned at 3 p.m. Picketers will gather across the street from the hospital, located at 5176 Hill Road East.
California Nurses Association members at Sutter Lakeside and several other Bay Area hospitals are planning to take part in the one-day walkout to protest what they allege are unreasonable concessions being sought at Sutter-managed hospitals.
Benjamin Elliott, CNA’s labor representative for the registered nurses at Sutter Lakeside and the lead negotiator during the contract campaign, told Lake County News that the strike was moving forward after a final bargaining session was held last Thursday, April 26.
Sutter Lakeside Chief Administrative Officer Siri Nelson, also confirmed to Lake County News that the walkout was taking place.
“The community can rest assured that quality patient care will continue as we have contracted for temporary, qualified registered nurses to cover for nurses who choose to strike,” she said in a Monday email message.
Elliott said Sutter Lakeside refused to withdraw its concessions, and maintained its last, best and final offer at the bargaining session last week.
On March 27, Sutter Lakeside had made a final offer that included ratification bonuses, step increases, professional development awards, no-premium health benefit options for registered nurses and their families, employer contributions to a fully funded employee pension plan, between 19 minimum and 48 maximum paid days off and an increase in the retiree health care spending account to $30,000.
Elliott said the offer also included “strictly economic” concessions that Sutter Lakeside management was seeking, such as a 30-percent reduction in standby pay, elimination of afternoon shift differential and a major reduction in night shift differential, reductions in health care coverage, a change in protections regarding pensions and retiree health care, and reductions in protections for nurses receiving meals and rest periods.
“Management is asking for deep cuts in our current contract that are unprecedented,” he said.
Elliott said a vote was taken on the offer and 96 percent of those taking part in the vote rejected it.
He said the union delivered a verbal counter offer at the April 26 bargaining session.
Nelson didn’t interpret what took place as having included a counter offer.
“We met last Thursday under the guise they were willing to compromise and would be bringing proposals,” Nelson said. “But, they brought nothing. Instead, the union reiterated its stance that it would ‘begin’ to negotiate if the hospital dropped our current proposal. We have been negotiating for nearly a year. During this time the union never came to the table with a single written economic proposal.”
She continued, “Our final proposal reflects our commitment to continue providing competitive wages and benefits to our nurses while also providing some long-term economic stability for the hospital. As a reminder, the average full-time RN at Sutter Lakeside makes over $120,000 with a very generous benefit package. And for part-time RNs the average annual compensation is just over $90,000 a year with the same rich benefits.”
Nelson had told Lake County News last week that she believed the negotiations were at impasse. Elliott said Sutter Lakeside attempted to declare impasse, but the union thinks there is still “room to move.”
“The hospital is really campaigning with misinformation and intimidating nurses about the strike and a potential lockout,” he said.
No new bargaining sessions have been scheduled, and Elliott said the nurses are not willing to meet while any of them are locked out in favor of replacement nurses the hospital plans to bring in.
“As soon as all nurses return to work we’re determined to do whatever it takes to reach a settlement,” he said.
In the mean time, Nelson said striking won’t do anything to bring closure to the contract negotiations. “It will just divert already scarce resources.”
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – The attorneys for two Clearlake Oaks men on trial for a June 2011 shooting that killed a child and wounded five others filed mistrial motions on Monday.
Doug Rhoades, representing 22-year-old Paul William Braden, and Stephen Carter, who is the attorney for 24-year-old Orlando Joseph Lopez, filed the motions by the deadline visiting Yolo County Judge Doris Shockley set for them last week.
Anderson's motion is response is expected to be filed on Tuesday in preparation for a hearing at 9 a.m. Wednesday.
Braden and Lopez are on trial for the shooting last June 18 that claimed the life of 4-year-old Skyler Rapp and left five of his family members and their friends wounded.
Testimony in the mens' trial – which began in late February – was called to a halt last Thursday after Rhoades raised objections to District Attorney Don Anderson's questioning of Sgt. Tim Celli of the Clearlake Police Department, as Lake County News has reported.
Anderson asked Celli about statements Lopez made to him during the investigation in which Lopez had allegedly incriminated Braden.
In response to a question about what Lopez said regarding his involvement, Celli said that Lopez told him he was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Kevin Stone – a previous codefendant who has since reached a plea agreement on lesser charges – with Braden seated behind him.
At that point Rhoades objected citing the 1965 court case People v. Aranda.
According to Rhoades' motion, such questioning in front of Braden's jury raises issues under case law established by People v. Aranda as well as another 1960s-era case, Bruton v. United States.
Rhoades’ motion explains, “Up to this point in the trial, not a single witness had placed Paul Braden at the scene or directly connected him with the shootings in any way.”
He said in subsequent discussions among counsel, “it was clear that the protections afforded by Aranda/Bruton had been violated.”
Aranda/Bruton establish that testimony of a defendant against his or her codefendant “produces a prejudice that cannot be cured with an admonition or instruction,” Rhoades wrote.
He said Celli's testimony was inadmissible under Aranda/Bruton, and further raises the issue of prosecutorial misconduct.
The complications from Aranda/Bruton were why two juries were impaneled, according to Rhoades, and agreements were reached between the prosecution and defense about the limits of evidence.
Rhoades' motion argues that Anderson, who took office as district attorney at the start of 2011, had not conducted a single prosecution in his career prior to the Braden and Lopez case, doing mostly family law, personal injury and some criminal defense.
“Yet for whatever reason, he decided to cut his prosecutorial teeth on a case involving two defendants charged with murder and multiple other counts, involving complex legal issues and not one, but two juries,” Rhoades explained.
According to Rhoades' take on the California Rules of Professional Conduct, Anderson is in violation of rules requiring “sufficient learning and skill” and suggests that such a violation “when observed by a judicial officer, must be reported to the State Bar.”
Rhoades said a curative instruction or admonition about the statement is futile. “Fourteen weeks of court proceedings, jurors’ lives, witness testimony and counsel time have been rendered useless by the carelessness of the prosecutor. Mistrial is the only available remedy as to defendant Paul Braden.”
In his motion, Carter also seeks a mistrial, with his arguments based on his client’s very different concerns, particularly, that joining the two mens’ trials was in error from the start and that it’s resulted in prejudice to both defendants.
“Two juries, and all the expense and time associated with two juries, have not solved the Aranda/Bruton problem,” he said.
Carter added, “A case with multiple defendants, numerous statements and defendants who are accusing each other of the crimes at issue is not an ideal joinder situation, not even when a county with limited departments and resources would like to combine the cases for cost-savings measures or other reasons relating to judicial economy.”
Further, Carter raised concerns about his client being forced to move forward as a single defendant in the middle of the trial. “There is a great ‘unknown’ as to what will be going through the minds of the people on the Lopez jury when Defendant Braden, his attorney and his jury are no longer in Court.”
A curative instruction to the jury won’t solve the problem, and he said it’s unknown what impact that a drastic change to the tactics and tone of the trial will have on his client’s jury.
Carter also takes aim at Anderson, suggesting the district attorney is guilty of misconduct for asking questions about statements that he knew “were not properly the subject of direct examination of this witness at this point in the jury trial and under no circumstances should such testimony have been elicited with both juries present in the courtroom.”
If Lopez’s case is to continue, Carter argued that the jury should be made aware that the prosecution erred and that Braden’s absence resulted from that error. As such, he’s seeking a finding of prosecutorial misconduct and a curative statement by the judge to the jury.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
LAKEPORT, Calif. – Firefighters responded to a trailer fire at Big Valley Rancheria early Tuesday morning.
The fire, reported at about 12:30 a.m., was located on Mission Rancheria Road across from Mission Way, according to radio reports.
Firefighters arriving on scene reported finding a fully involved singlewide travel trailer.
Lakeport Fire Chief Ken Wells said the travel trailer, located near the lake, was a 40-foot by 8-foot 1963 model, with stairs and a loft. He said three quarters of it was burned, with only the front quarter left standing.
“No one's been seen there for two weeks,” Wells said, adding that the trailer did have electricity.
Lakeport Fire sent one engine and seven personnel, and Kelseyville Fire sent one engine and three firefighters, he said.
Wells said the fire took about 30 minutes to extinguish.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Lake County News reports
A Monday report released by the state said gasoline and diesel prices surged in California in January 2012 while consumption dropped.
According to a report released today by the California State Board of Equalization (BOE), gasoline prices jumped 10.6 percent to an average of $3.75 a gallon, while consumption declined 3.2 percent compared to a year ago.
“Higher gasoline prices are challenging for every Californian and leading to tough choices about fuel consumption,” said BOE First District Member Betty T. Yee, whose constituency includes Lake County.
In California, diesel fuel prices were up 15.2 percent to $4.10 as consumption decreased 5.4 percent in January from a year earlier, the report showed.
Diesel consumption, used largely by commercial transportation, often reflects the pace of economic activity such as imports and exports through California ports, supply and demand conditions in residential and nonresidential construction, and agriculture, according to the report.
Nationally, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that the average price of a gallon of gasoline was up 9.2 percent to $3.44 in January from a year ago. The EIA also reported that the national average price of a gallon of diesel was up 13.0 percent to $3.83 in January from a year earlier.
The high price of gasoline was a primary factor in the rise in consumer prices. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in January 2012 that its consumer price index rose 2.9 percent in January 2012 from a year earlier.
Consistent with using less gasoline, the Federal Highway Administration data show a 1.2 percent decline in vehicle miles traveled by Californians in January 2012 from a year earlier.
California gasoline and diesel fuel figures are net consumption, including audit assessments, refunds, amended and late tax returns, and the State Controller’s Office refunds.
BOE, which is able to monitor gallons through tax receipts paid by fuel distributors in California, updates the fuel reports at the end of each month.
Fuel statistics and reports are available at www.boe.ca.gov/sptaxprog/spftrpts.htm .
