When the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors convenes tomorrow, it will discuss whether to approve a severance agreement for former Public Defender David Marcus that has already been executed and can’t legally be ratified.
The severance agreement, which followed Marcus’ Nov. 22 resignation after nine embattled months on the job and pays him about $25,000, was signed by Marcus on Nov. 29 and board Chair Virginia Bass on Dec. 7. Per the terms of the agreement, it was to be considered executed after the final signature and contains no clause that would allow the board to amend the agreement or require its ratification.
The meeting — which will also see the board consider penning a letter to a state lawmaker pushing a safe injection site bill — will be the third time in recent weeks that Marcus has been on the agenda.
The board met in closed session the day of Marcus’ departure, then again Dec. 5 to formally accept his resignation and appoint Kaleb Cockrum as his interim replacement. But while staff had represented that the board would discuss Marcus’ severance agreement at that meeting — and then maintained that it had implicitly approved the agreement when voting to accept Marcus’ resignation — County Counsel Jeffrey Blanck tells the Journal in an email this morning that wasn’t the case.
Last week, the Journal sent what’s known as a “cure and correct” letter to Blanck and the board informing them that we believe the county violated state open meeting laws by failing to put the severance agreement on the agenda and discuss it in open session.
“There was no Brown Act violation by the board of supervisors because no discussion or direction was given by the board regarding the agreement outside of any public meeting,” Blanck writes. “The timing of the events required quick action by staff that is now being ratified by the board. If they don’t ratify it then there is no agreement and we would reopen negotiations with Mr. Marcus based on board direction. We will see what the board does on Tuesday.”
Blanck has not responded to a follow up email asking him to point out the specific section of the agreement that provides for board ratification.
The agreement, meanwhile, does note that if either Marcus or the county sues to enforce its terms, the prevailing party would be entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from the other.
In an email response to the Journal’s “cure and correct” letter, Supervisor Rex Bohn didn’t dispute that a Brown Act Violation occurred but, rather, seemed to take issue with our calling it “a substantial violation” of one of the act’s central provisions.
“Death, Starvation, Cancer are substantial instances,” Bohn wrote, “clerical indifferences and procedures don’t reach that scale.”
In other matters, the board is slated to consider a request from Bohn to approve sending a letter to California Assemblymember Susan Eggman asking for the removal of Humboldt County from her Assembly Bill 186, which seeks to create a pilot program in six California counties allowing them to set up safe, monitored locations for people to use intravenous narcotics. The controversial bill wouldn’t require the counties — or cities within them — to set up the safe sites, but would give them the option of doing so.
Modeled after a facility in Vancouver, centers set up under the bill would provide clean needles and a staff of healthcare workers on site to help prevent overdoses and refer users who want to quit to detox facilities. The sites would not provide drugs but would offer addicts a safe harbor from criminal charges while using on site. (Read more about it in past Journal coverage here.)
Humboldt County was included in Eggman’s bill due to its high rate of drug use and overdose deaths. But Eggman and her staff apparently failed to consult with local officials prior to drafting the bill, which has rubbed some the wrong way.
Bohn is requesting that the board approve a letter from its chair officially asking Eggman to remove Humboldt as a potential location for the pilot program.
“No county official in Humboldt County was contacted about inclusion in this legislation when it was introduced in the 2017 legislative session,” the proposed letter states. “While we appreciate innovative efforts aimed at harm reduction, we believe Humboldt County is not prepared for injection facilities. Humboldt County is actively working on strategies to address drug addiction but an injection services program is not part of the county’s approach.”
Part of that approach is the addition of two syringe disposal kiosks that the county’s Department of Health and Human Services announced today have been placed at the Public Health and Social Services buildings at 529 I St. and 929 Koster St. in Eureka.
A third one is scheduled to be installed soon at the department’s main Mental Health building, also in Eureka, according to the news release. In addition, small sharps containers are available at each location’s front desk during normal business hours.
“The kiosks were purchased in response to community members and partner organizations expressing concern about syringe litter, and asking for a place to dispose of used needles,” Dana Murguia, a senior program manager with DHHS’s Healthy Communities Division, said in the release.
Bohn did not respond to an email asking if he sought input from city officials within Humboldt County before bringing the issue forward.
Both the letter and Marcus’ severance package are included on the board’s consent calendar, which is reserved for matters considered routine and generally enacted in a single vote without discussion.
Read the full DHHS release on the syringe disposal kiosks below:
Two syringe disposal kiosks have been installed in Eureka, and a third is on its way. The kiosks, purchased by the Humboldt County Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS), are intended to provide a safe and convenient location to dispose of used syringes.
The kiosks are located at the main Public Health and Social Services buildings A third one is scheduled to be installed at the main Mental Health location soon.
“The kiosks were purchased in response to community members and partner organizations expressing concern about syringe litter, and asking for a place to dispose of used needles,” said Dana Murguia, a senior program manager with DHHS’s Healthy Communities Division.
The disposal bins are part of the department’s Syringe Services Program (SSP), which provides needle exchange, information about overdose prevention, referrals to treatment programs and other services.
“Syringe exchange is an important component of an SSP,” said Michele Stephens, DHHS Public Health director. “It helps reduce the incidence of new HIV and viral hepatitis infections by decreasing the number of people sharing syringes and other injection equipment.”
DHHS Director Connie Beck said, “Needle exchange is a proven harm reduction strategy which increases entry into treatment and reduces overdose deaths. What we want to do now is make sure we’re reducing the risk of harm to all county residents.”
Beck added, “The volume of needle litter in Eureka is unacceptable. DHHS has been working with its partners to reduce it, and is committed to continuing to do so.” She added that conversations about reducing needle litter are taking place in other communities.
The new kiosks are located at 529 I St. and 929 Koster St. Small sharps containers are available at each location’s front desk during normal business hours.
Humboldt Waste Management Authority also accepts sharps in appropriate containers and will dispose of them free of charge. For a list of drop-off locations, visit www.hwma.net/disposal-services/medical-sharps.
People who find needles within Eureka city limits that they are unable to collect or dispose of can report them to Eureka Police Department’s non-emergency phone number at 707-441-4044.
For more information, contact Public Health at 707-445-6200.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the location of the current kiosks.
Related Stories
This article appears in Maria Garcia, Citizen.
Portugal is held up as the gold standard for “decriminalizing” drugs and not “judging” the addict. Their programs has some success due to wrap-around services and is mandatory. Portugal does not have a “Safe” Injection Program. Drug dealing is still illegal and dealt with harshly. Other EU countries tried to emulate the program. With the 2008 recession, their budgets were slashed for the addicts in program and caused overdoses, increased crime, and increased disease transmission, increased homelessness. Can you see us having an Injections Site AND wrap-around services? I don’t believe there will be funding for both. Why not use any proposed funding and increase needed detox/rehab facilities and sober living environments along with all the needed physical/mental health and social services. The way I see it, Injections Sites are prolonging the suffering and misery of the addict with the usual end result of death. Which would be more compassionate?
http://www.vancouversun.com/little+evidenc…
The four pillar approach only works when each pillar is properly funded. Prevention reduces the flow of people into addiction. Treatment reduces the number of addicts including those living in the DTES. Policing keeps a lid on the open drug dealing and the affects of the associated problems on the community. Only after these three pillars are properly funded can we afford to spend money on Harm Reduction initiatives that do not encourage abstinence. Putting HR first is like running up debt on your credit card and never paying more than your minimum payments.
http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/Issues/Vol…
THE JOURNAL OF GLOBAL DRUG Policy AND PRACTICE
A Critical Evaluation of the Effects of Safe Injection Facilities
Garth Davies, Simon Fraser University
Conclusion: Taking Causality Seriously
On the subject of the effects of SIFs, the available research is overwhelmingly positive. Evidence can be found in support of SIFs achieving each of the goals listed at the beginning of the evaluation. In terms of our level of confidence in these studies,the assessment offered here is far less sanguine. In truth,none of the impacts attributed to SIFs can be unambiguously verified. As a result of the methodological and analytical problems identified above, all claims remain open to question.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/_sites…
Vancouver’s INSITE service and other Supervised injection sites: What has been learned from research?
Final report of the Expert Advisory Committee
http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/councilwom…
“At the Vancouver site, the manager said since opening in 2003, the overdose death rate in the area around the clinic has dropped 35 percent. But the clinic also estimates 15 to 20 percent of people using the site come from other parts of the country specifically for it.”
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/h…
“Although research appears to bear that out, many of the studies that attest to Insites success are small and limited to the years after the center opened. For instance, a 2011 study published in the journal The Lancet found a 35 percent reduction in overdose deaths in the blocks surrounding Insite, versus 9 percent in the rest of Vancouver.
But that often-cited study looked only at the period two years before and two years after the center opened, not the ensuing decade.”
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/h…
“Although Insite is paired with a drug-treatment center, called Onsite, Berner and other critics point out that completion rates are low. Of the 6,500 people who visited Insite last year, 464 were referred to Onsites detox center. Of those, 252 finished treatment.”
The Vancouver Insite was placed in a crime-ridden, drug-ridden, low-income neighborhood. It only got worse.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/h…
“Although the Insite center is a model, the Vancouver neighborhood surrounding it is nothing to emulate, advocates acknowledged.
If I came from a city like Seattle and I went to that Insite place, it would scare the hell out of me, Kral said. I would think, Are we going to create one of those?”
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/vancouve…
Vancouvers gulag: Canadas poorest neighbourhood refuses to get better despite $1M a day in social spending
What do you think would happen if this was placed in a middle-class neighborhood, or, ANY neighborhood?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=audzsuRMWB…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwJkqTZ5H_…
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/b…
4/27/2016
Brian Hutchinson: Finding used drug needles in public spaces has become the new normal for Vancouver
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mark-hasiuk/i…
“Ten years later, despite any lofty claims, for most addicts, InSite’s just another place to get high.”
The 100% positive studies on Vancouver’s Insite (Safe Injection Facility) was done “Early last decade, Montaner and Kerr lobbied for an injection site. In 2003, the Chretien Liberals acquiesced, gave the greenlight to B.C.’s Ministry of Health, which, through Vancouver Coastal Health, gave nearly $1.5 million to the BC Centre (that’s Montaner and Kerr, you remember them) to evaluate a three-year injection site trial in Vancouver.
I asked him about the potential conflict of interest (lobbyists conducting research) and he ended the interview with a warning. “If you took that one step further you’d be accusing me of scientific misconduct, which I would take great offense to. And any allegation of that has been generally met with a letter from my lawyer.”
Was I being unfair? InSite is a radical experiment, new to North America and paid for by taxpayers. Kerr and company are obligated to explain their methods and defend their philosophy without issuing veiled threats of legal action.”
In the media, Kerr frequently mentions the “peer review” status of his studies, implying that studies published in medical journals are unassailable. Rubbish. Journals often publish controversial studies to attract readers — publication does not necessarily equal endorsement. The InSite study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a favourite reference of InSite champions, appeared as a “letter to the editor” sandwiched between a letter about “crush injuries” in earthquakes and another on celiac disease.”
Really? What kind of “science” produces dozens of studies, within the realm of public health, a notoriously volatile research field, with positive outcomes 100 per cent of the time? Those results should raise the eyebrows of any first-year stats student.”
And who’s more likely to be swayed by personal bias? InSite opponents, questioning government-sanctioned hard drug abuse? Or Montaner, Kerr and their handful of acolytes who’ve staked their careers on InSite’s survival? From 2003 to 2011, the BC Centre received $2,610,000 from B.C. taxpayers to “study” InSite. How much money have InSite critics received?”
There has never been an independent analysis of InSite, yet, if you base your knowledge on Vancouver media reports, the case is closed. InSite is a success and should be copied nationwide for the benefit of humanity. Tangential links to declining overdose rates are swallowed whole. Kerr’s claims of reduced “public disorder” in the neighbourhood go unchallenged, despite other mitigating factors such as police activity and community initiative. Journalists note Onsite, the so-called “treatment program” above the injection site, ignoring Onsite’s reputation among neighbourhood residents as a spit-shined flophouse of momentary sobriety.”
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/_sites…
Reducing the Transmission of Blood-Borne Viral Infections & Other Injection Related Infections
“Self-reports from users of the INSITE service and from users of SIS services in other countries indicate that needle sharing decreases with increased use of SISs. Mathematical modeling, based on assumptions about baseline rates of needle sharing, the risks of HIV transmission and other variables, generated very wide ranging estimates for the number of HIV cases that might have been prevented. The EAC were not convinced that these assumptions were entirely valid.
SISs do not typically have the capacity to accommodate all, or even most injections that might otherwise take place in public. Several limitations to existing research were identified including:
Caution should be exercised in using mathematical modelling for assessing cost benefit/effectiveness of INSITE, given that:
There was limited local data available regarding baseline frequency of injection, frequency of needle sharing and other key variables used in the analysis;
While some longitudinal studies have been conducted, the results have yet to be published and may never be published given the overlapping design of the cohorts;
No studies have compared INSITE with other methods that might be used to increase referrals to detoxification and treatment services, such as outreach, enhanced needle exchange service, or drug treatment courts.
Some user characteristics relevant to understanding their needs and monitoring change have not been reported including details of baseline treatment histories, frequency of injection and frequency of needle sharing.
User characteristics and reported changes in injection practices are based on self-reports and have not been validated in other ways. More objective evidence of sustained changes in risk behaviours and a comparison or control group study would be needed to confidently state that INSITE and SISs have a significant impact on needle sharing and other risk behaviours outside of the site where the vast majority of drug injections still take place.”
“It has been estimated that injection drug users inject an average six injections a day of cocaine and four injections a day of heroin. The street costs of this use are estimated at around $100 a day or $35,000 a year. Few injection drug users have sufficient income to pay for the habit out through employment. Some, mainly females get this money through prostitution and others through theft, break-ins and auto theft. If the theft is of property rather than cash, it is estimated that they must steal close to $350,000 in property a year to get $35,000 cash. Still others get the money they need by selling drugs.”
http://www.vancouversun.com/little+evidenc…
“In addition, the federal governments Advisory Committee on Drug Injection Sites report only five per cent of drug addicts use the injection site, three per cent were referred for treatment and there was no indication the crime rate has decreased, as well as no indication of a decrease in AIDS and hepatitis C since the injection site was opened.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article…
Massive Price Hike for Lifesaving Opioid Overdose Antidote
Suddenly in demand, naloxone injector goes from $690 to $4,500
Should we follow the money? Who would be profiting bigly from the increased use of naloxone?
https://www.bramptonguardian.com/community…
“Setting up free injection sites to deal with the recent spate of drug overdoses does not address the root of the opioid problem, says Ted Brown, executive director of Bramptons Regeneration Outreach Community.
Instead, Queens Park and other tiers of governments should consider investing resources and dollars toward rehabilitation programs to help those dealing with addiction and mental health issues, said Brown. “
http://www.bcmj.org/premise/supervised-inj…
Supervised injection sitesa view from law enforcement
Jamie Graham, former chief of Vancouver Police has outlined the successful model of dealing with an epidemic: Support, mandatory treatment, abstinence, and counseling as all part of the solution. My recover(ed)(ing) addict friends say they would agree.
https://mosaicscience.com/story/iceland-pr…
Iceland knows how to stop teen substance abuse but the rest of the world isnt listening
In Iceland, teenage smoking, drinking and drug use have been radically cut in the past 20 years. Emma Young finds out how they did it, and why other countries wont follow suit.
http://www.vancouversun.com/little+evidenc…
“The current campaign reports significant reductions in drug overdoses, yet the Government of British Columbia Selected Vital Statistics and Health Status Indicators show that the number of deaths from drug overdose in Vancouvers Downtown Eastside has increased each year (with one exception) since the site opened in 2003.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation…
Pigeon nest of needles highlights Vancouver’s drug problem
Some graphs about how overdoses in Vancouver, BC have increased:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4937e…
One more: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d2f8a…
The “Safe” Injection Movement is sponsored by the Drug Policy Alliance, an advocacy group that works to decriminalize drugs and is funded largely by billionaire George Soros. The group has pushed, thus far unsuccessfully, for similar legislation in New York, Maryland, Massachusetts and Vermont.
Here’s some examples of their thinking:
http://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/2…
http://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/n…
Decriminalization is right……..finally a second blogger in Humboldt who gets it…..
As far as severance, $5k per supe should cover it…… dock their pay…..
The four pillar approach only works when each pillar is properly funded.
Response: will disagree on this……it is a case by case situation…..each person is different…….no pillars may be desireable for the junkie…….if junkies are not forced to get treatment, then treatment is up to the will power of the junkie…….hmmmmm, not placing any bets on recovery…….