OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Correspondence Log
April 23, 2024 through April 30, 2024
Date Received From Subject
April 23, 2024 Mary Ann Shulman Electricity Rates
April 25, 2024 Jellicles Farm /
Lalitha Visveswaran
Request for Investigation
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Mary Ann Shulman
To: Commission
Cc: Mary Ann Shulman
Subject: Electricity Rates
Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 7:49:57 PM
Dear Ms. Stacy,
As a commission member whose term runs through 2026, I’m writing to let you know of my concern with the high cost of CleanPowerSF electricity. Combined with PG&E, the overall rates are unreasonably high.
In March, my bill was higher than in January … and I used less kwh by being judicious (and cold).
I just received a cheerful appearing postcard letting me know that CleanPowerSF is “updating” its electricity rates on July 1, 2024. Despite the cheerful appearance of the postcard, the message is actually quite dire in that an increase is coming.
Please, relay my affordability concerns to each and every rate-setting decision maker in your organization.
The rates are too high.
Thank you,
Mary Ann Shulman
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Jellicles Farm
To: Commission; 1 Haubert
Cc: Dawson, Amy L; [email protected]; Lalitha Visveswaran; jellicles farm Subject: Request for investigation into ACRCD’s management of Sunol AgPark and Treatment of Solo Female Farmers Date: Thursday, April 25, 2024 12:43:26 PM
To: SFPUC Commission, Supervisor Haubert, BOS, Alameda County District 1 I am writing to request that you open an investigation into the Alameda County Resource Conservation District (ACRCD), which is currently leasing the Sunol AgPark property from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC).
As a former farmer on a land license at the AgPark, I believe I have faced harassment, discrimination, and retaliation due to the gross mismanagement of the AgPark by ACRCD, ultimately leading to the loss of my farming operation and career.
The AgPark was intended to be a community resource managed by a public agency, and as such, it should not be used to harass and discriminate against the very people it is meant to support and serve.
Although
I understand that ACRCD is a Special District
and
SFPUC is the
landowner
who is not involved in its operation of the AgPark, I specifically request that the SFPUC
Commission and Office of BOS District 1
investigate how the AgPark treats solo
female farmers.
I have been attempting to obtain California Public Records Act (CPRA) reports from ACRCD, but they have been exceedingly slow in providing them, sending only a dozen or so emails every month since December 2023.
I suspect
these delays are deliberate and aim to frustrate my efforts to uncover the truth.
Moreover, ACRCD has refused to hold in-person meetings or mediations when they decided not to renew my license, further demonstrating their lack of transparency and unwillingness to engage in constructive dialogue.
During my decade-long tenancy at the AgPark, there were only three farming operations solely run by females, including myself. Alarmingly, all of them have since departed the AgPark. This disturbing pattern raises serious concerns about the management and oversight of the AgPark, and I believe it warrants a thorough investigation to ensure that the AgPark is operating in a fair, equitable, and non-discriminatory manner.
The three of us who came in the same cohort were:
Kristyn Leach(Namu Farm), Joanna
Letz(Bluma Farm) and myself, Lalitha Visveswaran(Jellicles Farm).
The conditions were
so hostile and unsustainable that today, there are no solo female farm operators remaining at the AgPark. This is a stark and troubling reality that demands immediate attention and action.
Furthermore, I believe the other two female farmers were given assistance and time to relocate and settle in their new operations, which I was never offered, despite my requests for mediation. This disparate treatment has effectively ended my entire 12-year farming career, as I have no other appropriate land to farm and am now facing financial ruin due to my investments. As an immigrant who started a farming career in a new country in my 40s, this is utterly devastating and has far-reaching consequences for my livelihood and well-being.
It is particularly egregious that I faced harassment and discrimination during my medical recuperation period, when I was most vulnerable. While I am pursuing this matter with ACRCD and collecting evidence, their delayed responses seem premeditated to make me abandon my fight for justice. This is unacceptable and goes against the very principles of fairness and accountability that public agencies are expected to uphold.
Moreover, I believe that a comprehensive CPRA request for all records, including emails and minutes of meetings between the farmers, ACRCD staff, and within ACRCD, would paint a clear picture of how ACRCD managed the AgPark. I am particularly concerned about the apparent disparate treatment between male-run and female-run farms.
It appears that more serious issues and flagrant disregard for the farm policy and rules of the AgPark from the male-run farms were often disregarded or dismissed with a small monetary fine or a probationary period. The evidence for this discrepancy can likely be found in the emails and minutes of the meetings. This further underscores the need for a thorough investigation into ACRCD's management practices and their potential discriminatory behavior.
As an immigrant and first-generation American, I feel that I have been unfairly targeted and discriminated against, despite being a law-abiding, rule-following, tax-paying citizen in Alameda County. The lack of support and the disparate treatment I have received from ACRCD is deeply troubling and raises questions about their commitment to equality and fairness.
As an immigrant without established community ties, networks, and connections, I should not be subjected to exploitation or discrimination by public agencies like ACRCD, which are entrusted with serving and supporting all members of the community equally.
Given these circumstances, I urge SFPUC to reconsider the competency of ACRCD in managing this public community resource and to thoroughly investigate their treatment of solo female farm operators at the Sunol AgPark.
As my own investigations are being obstructed, I request that SFPUC and the Board of Supervisors for Alameda County District 1 conduct a comprehensive investigation and assist me in my quest for justice. The public deserves to know the truth about how the AgPark is being managed and whether it is fulfilling its intended purpose of serving the community.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. I humbly request your assistance in my quest for justice, as it would mean a great deal to me personally and serve as a powerful example of how public agencies should operate and how female farmers, especially those from diverse backgrounds, should be supported and empowered.
Your intervention in this case would not only help me but also send a strong message that discrimination, harassment, and unequal treatment will not be tolerated in our community. I look forward to your prompt response and decisive action to address these serious concerns and ensure that the Sunol AgPark is a safe, welcoming, and inclusive space for all farmers, regardless of their gender, immigration status, or background.
Sincerely,
Lalitha Visveswaran
OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Correspondence Log
May 1, 2024 through May 9, 2024
Date Received From Subject
May 1, 2024 Peter Drekmeier “Single-Issue Activists”
May 7, 2024 Jellicles Farm /
Lalitha Visveswaran
Complaint to the Alameda County Civil
Grand Jury
May 9, 2024 Isabella Graef Urgent Environmental Health Problem
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Peter Drekmeier
To: Commission
Subject: "Single-Issue Activists"
Date: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 12:07:12 PM
Dear Commissioners,
Last week, SFPUC Press Secretary Nancy Hayden Crowley was quoted in the Modesto Bee: “It’s easy for single-issue activists to ignore the facts.”
The article covered our Earth Day Rally for the River prior to the April 23 SFPUC meeting.
The general theme of the rally was that SFPUC policies don’t just harm the environment, but they hurt people and communities as well. Speakers touched on the closure of the salmon fishing season, toxic algae blooms in the Delta and Bay, impacts to tribes, and skyrocketing water and sewer rates.
I’m curious which of these issues is the "single-issue" Ms. Hayden Crowley was referring to. -Peter
-----------------------
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
Tuolumne River Trust
[email protected]
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Jellicles Farm
To: [email protected]
Cc: jellicles farm; Lalitha Visveswaran; Dawson, Amy L; Commission; Espinoza, Cesar A; 1 Haubert; [email protected] Subject: Complaint to the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury to report the government misconduct and misuse of public funds and resources by the Alameda County Resource Conservation District (ACRCD) Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 12:55:56 PM
To Alameda Civil Grand Jury,
cc: Amy Dawson, SFPUC; SFPUC Commission; Supervisor Haubert, BOS Dist1; Shawn Wilson, Office of BOS Dist1.
Please find below the copy of my complaint to the Grand Jury in nine Parts(A-I) that I attempted to send via DocuSign on the Grand Jury’s website.
As I received no acknowledgment of receipt of submission from Alameda Grand Jury or DocuSign, I suspect that my documents did not get uploaded. I am attaching the screenshot with the DocuSign Envelope ID for reference and search.
To avoid any other possible technological hindrance to the viewing or uploading of the multiple PDF files, I have created a single combined document of the entire complaint.
Please let me know what other information is required to be delivered.
Regards,
Lalitha Visveswaran
[..] Begin Text Of Complaint in 9 Parts(Part A-I)
I am submitting this complaint to the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury to report the government misconduct and misuse of public funds and resources by the Alameda County Resource Conservation District (ACRCD). As a farmer who has leased land from ACRCD for the past 10 years, I have witnessed and experienced firsthand the unethical and unlawful practices of this public agency.
ACRCD has engaged in a pattern of misconduct, including harassment, discrimination, and retaliation against me, which has resulted in the wrongful termination of my farming license. They have misused public funds and resources by allocating personnel and money to pursue baseless allegations, unwarranted legal actions, and discriminatory practices, rather than using these resources to support legitimate agricultural initiatives and serve the public interest.
Moreover, ACRCD has violated the Brown Act, a California law that guarantees the public's right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies. ACRCD has improperly prevented me from attending board meetings, changed meeting agendas at the last minute to hinder my participation, and failed to provide adequate notice of meetings where my farming license was discussed.
These actions demonstrate a clear pattern of misconduct and a disregard for transparency and public accountability.
Furthermore, ACRCD has violated various other state laws and legal principles, including the California Public Records Act and contract law, among others. Their actions have undermined the public trust and the integrity of local government institutions.
I am requesting that the Grand Jury investigate ACRCD's government misconduct, Brown Act violations, and misuse of public funds and resources, hold them accountable for their actions, and recommend measures to prevent similar abuses in the future. The following complaint provides a detailed account of the events that have transpired, along with the legal bases for my claims. I am prepared to provide additional evidence to support my allegations, if needed.
PART A
Complaint to the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury regarding the Alameda County Resource Conservation District (ACRCD)
1. Jurisdiction: The Alameda County Resource Conservation District (ACRCD) is an independent Special District under Division 9 operating within Alameda County and is subject to the Grand Jury's jurisdiction.
2. Background: I have been farming on land leased to ACRCD from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) for 10 years under a year-to-year farm license. There is a farm policy and a farm license contract with ACRCD, and I have been in compliance with the terms throughout the duration of the agreement.
3. Alleged Misconduct:
a. On May 11, I notified ACRCD of my medical recuperation, which would delay the resumption of my farm activities by ten days. My license runs from January 1 to December 31, 2023. b. On May 26, I mowed the cover crop and resumed farm activities. However, on June 7, I received a letter informing me of license violations, including trash, weeds, and non-compliance, despite having completed these tasks.
c. After providing evidence of compliance, I faced harassment through baseless allegations of non-compliance noted during an evaluation conducted on December 19, 2022, of the previous year. d. On June 24, I was presented with new tasks that would effectively stop me from farming the land I licensed, constituting a breach of contract. The allegations were arbitrary, and the delayed conveyance of these demands was made to hinder my farming activities. e. I faced numerous instances of discrimination, and although I filed a dispute resolution as per the farm policy, the decision not to renew my license was made before the dispute resolution process unfolded, undermining due process.
f. ACRCD continued to mislead me, suggesting that compliance with their demands would protect my license, even though their demands prevented me from farming during the year when I licensed the land for farming, constituting a tortious breach of contract. g. ACRCD misled the SFPUC, which was allocating funds for attorney costs. The county counsel provided an attorney, resulting in government waste and misuse of resources. h. When informed of my license non-renewal, I requested mediation as per the license contract and farm policy. However, ACRCD and their attorney changed the wording in subsequent communications to deny me mediation, constituting a unilateral modification of the contract. i. ACRCD engaged in misconduct by not acknowledging and returning certified mail containing a second dispute resolution form against them for retaliation. j. ACRCD violated the Brown Act by preventing me from attending board meetings after learning that I intended to address their board of directors. They attempted to stop me from addressing the board the following month but allowed me to speak after I reached out to the Office of the Board of Supervisors, resulting in a change to the meeting notice 24 hours before the meeting, which is also a violation of the Brown Act.
k. ACRCD informed me that my request for California Public Records Act (CPRA) records was a waste of time and not in the public interest. I only obtained the records after splitting the initial requests into multiple batches, and I am still awaiting the completion of the batches at a slow pace, which I believe is a delaying tactic to make me miss the deadline for filing any action. l. ACRCD treated me like an employee rather than a licensee, according to the definition of an employee under the ABC test, Common Law test, and IRS definition. However, I was not paid for my labor under their instructions, nor did I receive employee protections against harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, constituting misconduct. m. ACRCD engaged in intimidation tactics and abuse of authority, including the fabrication of allegations of non-compliance.
4. Non-renewal of License: ACRCD's decision not to renew my license was based on allegations of non-compliance related to trash and weeds in my field. I have photographic evidence contradicting these allegations, but I was not given the opportunity to present the evidence and was denied mediation. The non-renewal of my license has led to the termination of my 10-year farming career at Sunol AgPark.
5. Waste of Resources:
a. ACRCD misused funds by allocating resources to investigate baseless allegations and pursue unwarranted legal action against my farming operation. b. ACRCD inefficiently allocated resources on a prolonged dispute resolution process, legal fees, administrative costs, and staff time. c. ACRCD failed to support local agriculture by undermining the viability of my farming operation and diverting resources away from supporting legitimate agricultural endeavors.
6. Remedies Sought:
a. A thorough investigation into the ACRCD's practices, decision-making processes, employees, advisory board, attorney, and board of directors. b. Disciplinary measures for officials engaged in misconduct. c. Policy changes to prevent future discrimination and misuse of resources. d. Compensation for the loss of my 10-year farming career at Sunol AgPark, including lost income, investments made, future opportunities, emotional distress, and reputation damage. e. Termination of SFPUC's lease with ACRCD and evaluation of ACRCD's competency to manage urban agriculture. f. Formation of a new local agency with stakeholder input and participation. g. Dissolution of the current Sunol AgPark advisory board and formation of a new advisory board.
7. Conclusion: The Alameda County Resource Conservation District (ACRCD) has engaged in a pattern of misconduct, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against me, resulting in the termination of my 10-year farming career at Sunol AgPark.
The ACRCD's actions have violated the Brown Act, breached contracts, denied due process, and wasted public resources. These actions have not only caused me significant financial and emotional harm but have also undermined the ACRCD's mission to support local agriculture.
I urge the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury to thoroughly investigate the ACRCD's practices, hold officials accountable for their misconduct, and recommend policy changes to prevent future abuses.
Furthermore, I seek compensation for the loss of my farming career and the damages I have suffered due to the ACRCD's actions. It is crucial that the SFPUC's lease with ACRCD be terminated and that a new local agency be formed with proper stakeholder input and participation to ensure the effective management of urban agriculture in our community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt action and response.
Sincerely,
Lalitha Visveswaran
5/7/2024
PART B
1. June 7 evidence:
a. Copy of the letter in evidence.
b. Evidence that I had completed the tasks before receiving the letter: photographs with timestamps, witness statements available.
2. Concerning the baseless allegations of non-compliance noted during the December 19, 2022 evaluation:
a. Copy of evaluation report.
b. Photographic evidence that it was baseless allegations.
3. Regarding the new tasks presented on June 24 that would effectively stop you from farming:
a. Tasks were communicated in person and minutes noted by ACRCD after my request to record was denied. b. I was told that I was not in compliance due to the presence of a UV damaged plastic box, presence of a stakes for vining plants that is part of farming activity and presence of Bermuda weed which was alleged without evidence and which could be easily disproved. c. These tasks were arbitrary and designed to hinder my farming activities. Evidence: witness testimony of farm neighbor who did a field walk and declared it clean of weeds. Neighboring farms with similar condition were not cited for non compliance. Photographic evidence available. Violations by male farmers were dealt with fines and/or probationary period.
4. Concerning the instances of discrimination and the dispute resolution process:
a. Specific examples of discrimination faced : June 6, June 24, July 24 and remaining part of the year. b. Partial timeline:
Jellicles Farm to ACRCD
May 11, 2023
Informing medical leave and recuperation
May 26, 2023
Return to farm activities
Communication #1:
ACRCD to Jellicles Farm
June 7, 2023
Letter of Violation of License
Communication #2 :
Jellicles Farm to ACRCD
July 27, 2023
Request for Dispute Resolution
Communication #3:
ACRCD to Jellicles Farm
Aug 29, 2023
ACRCD Response #1
Communication #4:
Jellicles Farm to ACRCD
Sept 17, 2023
Dispute Resolution Continuation #2
Communication #5:
ACRCD to Jellicles Farm
Oct 10, 2023
ACRCD Response #2
Communication #6:
Jellicles Farm to ACRCD
Oct 20, 2023
Concerns of Retaliation and request for meeting to present evidence.
Communication #7:
ACRCD to Jellicles Farm
Nov 7, 2023
Retaliatory Non Renewal Letter
Communication #8:
Jellicles Farm to ACRCD
Nov 9, 2023
Grievance letter sent against Retaliation (unclaimed USPS certified mail) Communication #9:
Jellicles Farm to Office of Board of Supervisors
Nov 15, 2023
Request to intervene after unfair non renewal and harassment during medical recuperation.
Communication #10
Office of Board of Supervisors to Karen Sweet(BoD, ACRCD) Nov 20, 2023
Request to allow me to address ACRCD Board Meeting
Communication #11
Jellicles Farm to Karen Sweet(BoD ACRCD)
Nov 27, 2023
Written public comment as no access to Nov Board Meeting on Zoom Communication #12
ACRCD to Jellicles Farm
Nov 29, 2023
Addressing the Nov 9, 2023 grievance email (unclaimed USPS mail) Communication #13
Jellicles Farm to ACRCD
Dec 3, 2023
Request for reevaluation and mediation
Communication #14
ACRCD to Jellicles Farm
Dec 8, 2023
Denial of Mediation
Communication #15
Jellicles Farm to ACRCD
Dec 8, 2023
Request for reevaluation and a meeting
Communication #16
Jellicles Farm to Office of Board of Supervisors
Dec 18, 2023
Request seeking guidance to be allowed to make public comment at ACRCD Board Meeting after ACRCD alters board meeting notice to remove Zoom option(2nd violation of Brown Act) Communication #17
Jellicles Farm to Office of Board of Supervisors, SFPUC Dec 21, 3023
Concerns Regarding Transparency and Conduct in ACRCD(Collusion) and Sunol AgPark Management from CPRA Discovery.
Communication #18
Jellicles Farm to Office of Board of Supervisors, SFPUC Dec 21, 2023
Concern Regarding Unilateral Modification of Farm Policy by ACRCD from CPRA Discovery Communication #19
Jellicles Farm to Office of Board of Supervisors, SFPUC Feb 15, 2024
Urgent Review of ACRCD’s Management of Sunol AgPark and Misuse of SFPUC Resources Communication #20
Jellicles Farm to Office of Board of Supervisors , SFPUC 2/19/2024
Evidence of Misuse of funds and resources for dispute resolution when decision to not renew was internally made. (CPRA screenshots provided) Communication #21
Jellicles Farm to Office of Board of Supervisors , SFPUC 4/25/2024
Request for investigation into ACRCD’s management of Sunol AgPark and Treatment of Solo Female Farmers c. I learnt that the decision not to renew license was made before the dispute resolution process concluded through CPRA discovery in a letter dated August 23 when Katherine Boxer, CEO sent a letter to Colleen Hotchkiss, Agpark Manager and Marilyn Harvey after I submitted a request for dispute resolution to Ms.Boxer regarding the harassment and discrimination by Ms.Hotchkiss on July 27, 2023.
Screenshot of the message(via CPRA discovery) to convene a talk to notify me of non renewal by October is available. This internal communication occurred before the first response to my request for dispute resolution.
My request to look into the matter and offer to provide evidence was dismissed. I was also told to not contact or speak to the Agpark manager effectively denying me any opportunity to communicate my concerns.
5. Regarding ACRCD's misleading behavior and breach of contract:
a. I have correspondence and records in
email where ACRCD suggested that compliance with their demands would protect my license. b. The reason for the dispute resolution request was that the Agpark Manager wanted me to fallow the acreage where I meant to plant for the season in order to eradicate a weed with equipment that I did not possess. The protocol was baseless as there was no presence of the noxious weed that she claimed was in my field. Witness testimony and field walk and subsequent tractor work supports my claim.
However I did work the field with my equipment and it was dismissed as non compliance even though the Agpark manager knew that as a female farmer and 49 years of age, I was unable to use the farm equipment as my neighboring male farmers.
6. Concerning the violation of the Brown Act:
a. Nov 27 Board meeting had Zoom Disabled. Karen Sweet, the President of the Board knew that I was planning to attend. b. As did office of the Board of Supervisors District 1 whom I asked for help me address the meeting. c. I attempted to attend Dec 18 meeting and found that public participation on Zoom was disabled and only in person attendance was permitted. This was amended from the first meeting notice that was supposed to be sent 72 hours prior acc to the Brown Act. d. I brought it to the notice of the office of Board of Supervisors upon whose query they changed it again to allow Zoom attendance only a few hours before the actual meeting began. This too is in violation of the Brown Act and was implemented to stop me from making an appeal to the board. I have emails and screenshots as evidence.
7. Regarding request for CPRA records:
a. I submitted initial CPRA request in Dec 2023.
b. ACRCD suggested that it was too extensive and that it was not in public interest to waste resources to address my request. c. I split the request into many sections. They send me one request at a time every month. The next one is pending for May, multiple requests are in backlog.
8. Concerning ACRCD's treatment of me as an employee:
a.ACRCD completely controlled my time and work.
b. ACRCD insisted that I use equipment that I did not own and did not compensate me for the loss of the farming year which was the activity I contracted the land with ACRCD. c. I was asked to do tasks that was not part of my planned farming activity for 2024 paid license period.
PART C
Definition of an Employee:
An employee is a person who performs services for an employer under the employer's control and direction, and the employer has the right to control and direct the individual's work, both as to the result to be accomplished and the details and means by which that result is accomplished.
IRS Test:
The IRS uses a 20-factor test to determine employee status for federal employment tax purposes.
These factors are similar to the common law test and include:
1. Level of instruction;
2. Amount of training;
3. Degree of business integration;
4. Extent of personal services;
5. Control of assistants;
6. Continuity of relationship;
7. Flexibility of schedule;
8. Demands for full-time work;
9. Need for on-site services;
10. Sequence of work;
11. Requirements for reports;
12. Method of payment;
13. Payment of business or travel expenses;
14. Provision of tools and materials;
15. Investment in facilities;
16. Realization of profit or loss;
17. Work for multiple companies;
18. Availability to public;
19. Control over discharge; and
20. Right of termination.
Courts and government agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Labor (DOL), use various tests to determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists.
The most common tests are:
A. ABC Test: Most states use this test, which presumes a worker is an employee unless the employer can prove:
- (A) The worker is free from control and direction in the performance of the work - (B) The work is done outside the usual course of the company's business and off the premises of the business - (C) The worker is customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, profession, or business B. Common Law Test: This test focuses on the degree of control the employer has over the worker. Factors considered include:
- The extent to which the employer controls how the work is performed - Whether the employer provides training and tools
- The duration of the relationship
- The method of payment (hourly, salary, or by project) - Whether the work is a key part of the employer's regular business Finally:
Economic Realities Test: This test, used by the DOL, considers the economic dependence of the worker on the employer. Factors include:
- The degree of control the employer has over the worker - The worker's opportunity for profit or loss
- The worker's investment in equipment or materials
- The level of skill required for the work
- The permanence of the relationship
- Whether the service rendered is an integral part of the employer's business ACRCD's control over my work, the integration of my labours into their business, and the permanence of our working relationship support the misclassification of the nature of my work as one of a licensee while it was actually that of an employee.
PART D
ACRCD violated the California Brown Act, specifically Government Code sections 54954 and 54954.2, when they prevented me from attending board meetings and changed meeting notices less than 24 hours before the meeting, thus denying the public the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.
PART E
ACRCD violated the California Public Records Act (Government Code sections 6250-6270) by delaying and obstructing the delivery of requested records. The CPRA requires that public records be made promptly available upon request, with limited exceptions. Government Code section 6253(b) states that 'each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor.'
However, ACRCD informed me that my request for records was a waste of time and not in the public interest. I only obtained the records after splitting the initial request into multiple batches, and I am still awaiting the completion of the batches at a slow pace. This delay appears to be a deliberate tactic to hinder my ability to file any action within the required timeframes.
Furthermore, ACRCD failed to comply with Government Code section 6253.5, which requires that public meetings be recorded and made available to the public upon request. There are gaps in the CPRA records provided by ACRCD, particularly concerning meetings related to my case. This lack of transparency and failure to maintain accurate records is a violation of the CPRA and raises concerns about the integrity of ACRCD's decision-making process.
ACRCD's actions demonstrate a pattern of non-compliance with the CPRA and a disregard for the public's right to access information concerning the conduct of the people's business. This behavior undermines the purpose of the CPRA and hinders the ability of individuals like myself to seek redress for misconduct and wrongdoing by public agencies.
PART F
ACRCD's actions against me constitute a violation of California Government Code sections 8314 and 8547-8547.12. Section 8314 prohibits the use of public resources for personal or political purposes, stating that 'it is unlawful for any elected state or local officer, including any state or local appointee, employee, or consultant, to use or permit others to use public resources for a campaign activity, or personal or other purposes which are not authorized by law.' ACRCD misused public funds and resources to target my farming operation by allocating personnel and funds to investigate baseless allegations and pursue unwarranted legal action against me.
These resources could have been better utilized to support legitimate agricultural initiatives within the community. Instead, ACRCD engaged in a campaign of discrimination and retaliation against me, using public resources to further their personal and political agenda.
Moreover, ACRCD's actions against me constitute a violation of the whistleblower protections provided under Government Code sections 8547-8547.12. These sections prohibit retaliation against individuals who report improper governmental activities, such as the misuse of public funds or the violation of laws and regulations. By targeting my farming operation and engaging in a pattern of discrimination and harassment after I raised concerns about their practices, ACRCD violated these whistleblower protections.
The discrimination I faced included unequal treatment, baseless allegations and denial of opportunities. These actions were motivated by personal animosity and retaliation for speaking out against ACRCD's practices.
ACRCD's misuse of public resources and discrimination against me not only violate California Government Code sections 8314 and 8547-8547.12 but also undermine the public trust and the integrity of local government institutions. The Grand Jury must investigate these violations and hold ACRCD accountable for their actions.
PART G
ACRCD's actions against me violate the general legal principles against discrimination and retaliation, as outlined in California Government Code sections 12940-12951. While these sections primarily apply to employers, they demonstrate the state's strong public policy against discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in various contexts, including business practices and government conduct.
Section 12940 prohibits discrimination based on protected characteristics, such as race, religion, gender, disability, and medical condition. It also forbids harassment and retaliation against individuals who oppose unlawful practices or participate in legal proceedings related to discrimination claims.
Although ACRCD was not my direct employer, their actions towards me violated the spirit and intent of these anti-discrimination laws. In fact, ACRCD treated me as an employee under the 'suffer or permit' standard, as well as the ABC test, common law test, and IRS definition of an employee.
Under the 'suffer or permit' standard, a worker is considered an employee if the employer knew or should have known that the work was being performed and permitted the worker to do so. ACRCD was well aware of the work I was performing on the land I leased from them and not only permitted but required me to perform this work as part of my farming operation.
Furthermore, according to the ABC test, common law test, and IRS definition, I should have been classified as an employee due to the level of control ACRCD exercised over my work, the integration of my farming operation into their business, and the permanence of our working relationship.
Despite treating me as an employee, ACRCD failed to provide me with the pay and protections associated with employee status. They did not pay me for my labor performed under their instructions and did not provide me with the employee protections against harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, as required by law.
By misclassifying me as an independent contractor while treating me as an employee, ACRCD not only violated labor laws but also engaged in a pattern of discrimination and retaliation that undermined my rights and protections as a worker.
ACRCD engaged in government misconduct and misused public funds and resources by targeting my farming operation with baseless allegations, unwarranted legal actions, and a pattern of harassment and retaliation. These actions were motivated by personal animosity and retaliation for speaking out against ACRCD's practices.
Specific examples of ACRCD's misconduct include:
1. Allocating personnel and funds to foist baseless allegations to target my farming operation.
2. Pursuing unwarranted legal actions and denying due process.
3. Engaging in a campaign of harassment and retaliation after you raised concerns about their practices.
By engaging in these discriminatory and retaliatory practices, ACRCD misused public resources that could have been better utilized to support legitimate agricultural initiatives within the community. Their actions not only violated the general principles of anti-discrimination law but also undermined the public trust and the integrity of local government institutions.
The Grand Jury must investigate these instances of government misconduct and misuse of public funds and resources. ACRCD must be held accountable for their actions, and steps must be taken to ensure that similar abuses do not occur in the future. This may include policy changes, disciplinary measures for the officials involved, and increased oversight of ACRCD's practices.
PART H
ACRCD's actions constitute a breach of contract and a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which are fundamental principles of contract law. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires parties to a contract to act in good faith and not deprive the other party of the benefits of the agreement.
In my case, ACRCD breached our farming license contract and violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by:
1. Unilaterally modifying the terms of the agreement: ACRCD presented me with new tasks and requirements that were not part of the original contract, effectively preventing me from farming the land I had leased. This unilateral modification of the agreement deprived me of the benefits I was entitled to under the contract.
2. Failing to provide mediation as required by the contract: When I requested mediation to resolve the disputes arising from ACRCD's actions, they changed the wording in subsequent communications to deny me this right. Mediation was a key provision of our contract, and by denying me access to this process, ACRCD breached the agreement and acted in bad faith.
3. Misleading me about the consequences of compliance: ACRCD representatives led me to believe that complying with their new demands would protect my farming license, even though these demands made it impossible for me to farm during the term of my lease. This deceptive behavior is a clear violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
4. Arbitrarily and capriciously terminating my license: ACRCD terminated my farming license based on baseless allegations and without following the proper procedures outlined in our contract.
This arbitrary and capricious behavior is a breach of the agreement and a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
By breaching our contract and violating the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, ACRCD engaged in misconduct and misused public resources. The time and resources spent on unilaterally modifying the agreement, denying me mediation, misleading me about compliance, and arbitrarily terminating my license could have been better used to support the organization's mission and serve the community.
Furthermore, ACRCD's actions have caused me significant financial and personal harm, as I have lost the ability to farm the land I leased and have been deprived of the benefits I was entitled to under our agreement.
The Grand Jury must investigate these instances of misconduct and misuse of resources by ACRCD and hold them accountable for their actions. This may include requiring ACRCD to compensate me for the losses I have suffered as a result of their breach of contract and bad faith behavior.
PART I
In addition to breaching our contract and violating the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, ACRCD's actions also constitute a tortious breach of contract. A tortious breach of contract occurs when a party to a contract intentionally breaches the agreement with the knowledge that their actions will cause harm to the other party.
ACRCD's conduct demonstrates a clear pattern of intentional and malicious behavior designed to harm my farming operation and deprive me of the benefits of our contract. Their actions, including unilaterally modifying the agreement, denying me mediation, misleading me about compliance, and arbitrarily terminating my license, were taken with the knowledge that they would cause me substantial financial and personal harm.
Moreover, ACRCD used an evaluation from 2022 to justify their actions against me in 2023, despite the fact that my contract ran from January 2023 to December 2023. This is a clear example of their bad faith and intentional efforts to undermine my farming operation. By using an outdated evaluation to impose new requirements and restrictions on my farming activities, ACRCD deliberately prevented me from utilizing the land I had leased for the purpose of farming.
This tortious breach of contract not only caused me direct financial losses but also resulted in significant emotional distress and damage to my professional reputation. ACRCD's actions have effectively destroyed my ability to continue farming and have deprived me of the opportunity to pursue my livelihood.
The Grand Jury must investigate ACRCD's tortious breach of contract and hold them accountable for their intentional and malicious actions. This may include requiring ACRCD to compensate me for the full extent of my losses, including financial damages, emotional distress, and damage to my professional reputation.
Furthermore, the Grand Jury should examine ACRCD's practices and procedures to ensure that similar abuses of power and intentional breaches of contract do not occur in the future. This may involve implementing stronger oversight mechanisms, providing training on contract law and good faith dealing for ACRCD staff and board members, and establishing clear consequences for those who engage in misconduct and misuse of resources.
[..]
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Isabella A Graef
To: Commission
Subject: urgent environmental health problem - break of sewage pipe Date: Thursday, May 9, 2024 3:38:44 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am contacting you because I am at my wits' end.
I have been trying for days now to get someone to take notice/responsibility to repair a broken sewage pipe under Diamond Street in Noe Valley. This includes many calls to 311, in person visit to the water department at 525 Golden Gate Ave and email exchanges with someone from the Mayor's campaign staff.
My last resort now is the Departmenf of Public Health, as this constitutes ultimately a public heath problem.
There is a break in the sewer pipe in front of my house at 1433 Diamond street. I reported this immediately to 311 on Friday night when the break caused sewage backup in my house on 1433 Diamond Street. The backup flooded the first floor and I had to get an emergency plumber and a biohazard clean up team. The whole first floor is wrecked and the house is currently not safe to live in.
I informed 311 that I had video footage (
1435-04 City Side
) of the broken pipe and that the plumber marked the spot of the break with a green marker on the road.
I have spoken to 311 multiple times since Friday - to no avail other than getting sewage back flushed into my house again by a guy who in my medical opinion ( I am an MD with an additional degree in Public Health) seemed intoxicated, despite me telling the supervisor at 311 that there is a break in the sewage pipe. The last three times I had asked to speak to a 311 supervisor as the customer service people at 525 Golden Gate Ave had recommended . The 311 system is unfortunately unbelievably dysfunctional und anything but helpful in cases of emergencies, as I sadly experienced.
The customer service person at the water department at 525 Golden Gate Ave also tried every phone number he could find in his system and he could not get anyone who would take responsibility and action on the phone. One would think that there is someone in the administration of SF responsible for waste management, who is present in an office and answers a phone. But sadly this is not the case.
Sanitation and a functional sewage system are some of the prime responsibilities of a city to ensure the health and safety of its residents. At this point my last resort is to contact the SF Public Health Department to see if you could help, as I see this as a biohazard and public health issue.
My very last resort will be local news media. To me the lack of accountability of the Sewage Department is dangerous , incomprehensible and a threat to public health.
I can be reached at : 415 279 2619.
best regards
Dr. Isabella Graef