Sinai was voted in unanimously by the four sitting board members from a pool of 10 candidates. Sinai will fill the seat vacated by former board president Leah Wilson, who stepped down in March after being appointed court executive officer for the Alameda County Superior Court. Wilson resigned citing concerns about a conflict of interest.

Current board president Karen Hemphill said that despite a strong applicant pool, Sinai had qualities that showed the board she was the most suitable person for the job.

“I felt that the Board needed someone who was already familiar with the District and was involved in public education and Julie met all of these attributes,” Hemphill said in an email.  “She has been a long-time public school activist, used to work for the District and in her current work at the university, it’s all about partnerships and collaboration.”

Before working at UC Berkeley, Sinai was also chief of staff to Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates. Sinai said she hopes to apply her previous community and university experience to the school district and help the board with its current challenges, which include a new superintendent, increased efforts to improve academic achievement and heated negotiations with teachers’ unions.

“My future plans are to become familiar with the issues that the board has to tackle and look how to move our equity work forward,” Sinai said. “I will also help with looking at the physical status of a student district and do whatever I can do to reach an agreement with the unions.”

Michelle Moskowitz, director of advocacy and institutional relations at UC Berkeley, works with Sinai and congratulated her appointment, saying she believes Sinai will exceed expectations on the board.

“I think Julie will be an amazing asset to the board, as she has many years of experience working for the city of Berkeley,” Moskowitz said. “They could not have made a better choice. All of her colleagues at the Government and Community Relations Office congratulate her.”

Hemphill said she is glad to be working with Sinai and believes that the board will benefit from working with her.

“I expect that Julie will be a great asset in building partnerships with our community, the County and of course the University,” Hemphill said in an email.  “She also will be great in furthering our work to advance overall academic achievement and Julie’s up close knowledge of what a governing body does and how an effective elected body works together through her work as the Mayor’s Chief of Staff will be very useful.”

Sinai will serve the remainder of Wilson’s term until the seat comes up for re-election in November 2014.

Contact Seif Abdelghaffar at sabdelghaffar@dailycal.org.

The post Julie Sinai appointed to Berkeley school board vacant seat appeared first on The Daily Californian.

In the earlier ruling made in February, the Alameda County Superior Court mandated the UC to comply with public records requests for its investments, some of which were made with public money. Reuters America filed the suit against the UC system last year in response to the university’s failure to comply with a public records request.

According to a statement by Charles Robinson, general counsel of the UC, the lower court ruling favors commercial interests by forcing the disclosure of information that may be used for financial gain.

“This attempt to ‘reach through’ government to obtain records from private parties – so that Reuters can advance its own commercial interests – contradicts both the (California Public Records Act) and the legislative statute that created specific exemptions from disclosure so that public pension funds may invest in private equity funds,” Robinson said in the statement. “Such funds have proven extremely profitable to the University and as such, greatly benefited our students, faculty, employees and retirees.”

According to The San Jose Mercury News, the UC system has invested a total of $7 million from its general endowment and $52 million from its retirement savings program with venture capital firms Sequoia Capital and Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers.

Justin Abraham is a news editor. Contact him at jabraham@dailycal.org.

The post UC files appeal to overturn public records ruling appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The ruling mandates that as a publicly funded institution, the university is required to comply with the public records requests, including those for its investments, some of which were made with public money. Last year, Reuters America filed the suit against the UC system in response to its failure to comply with a public records request.

Information on each firm’s combined returns — reflecting all its investment activity — has been made available by the university, but the new ruling now requires the university provide more detailed information on the individual funds in which it specifically invests.

“It’s ultimately all state money from the taxpayers, subject to state law,” said Karl Olson, the attorney who filed the suit. “I think that it’s kind of strange to take the attitude of ‘we’re so lucky to give money to these venture capital funds.’ I think venture capital funds are lucky to get taxpayer money.”

According to The San Jose Mercury News, the UC system has invested a total of $7 million from its general endowment and $52 million from its retirement savings program with venture capital firms Sequoia Capital and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

Both invest venture capital — funds that are invested in startup companies — that have the potential to give off high returns but at the risk of high losses. Venture capital invested in successful Silicon Valley startups like Facebook has paid off handsomely, while investments in unsuccessful startups are wholly lost.

The UC Office of the President, as well as both venture capital firms, declined to comment.

According to Joe Simitian — a former state senator who sponsored a law in 2005 clarifying the disclosure of public investments — the UC system opposed the disclosure of the investment information on the grounds that it would harm the university’s ability to invest in profitable venture portfolios amid declining state support.

In 2003, the university lost a similar case when the Mercury News sued it for similar information on its venture capital investments at that time. Monday’s decision ruled that the university did not comply with the requirements outlined in Simitian’s statute.

The UC system will not need to comply with the ruling until the deadline for an appeal on March 11.

Jacob Brown is the lead higher education reporter. Contact him at jbrown@dailycal.org

The post Alameda County Superior Court orders UC to disclose venture capital investments appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Kaus, 64, is one of three recently appointed judges announced by Brown last Wednesday. The other two appointees were Scott Patton, who graduated from University of San Francisco School of Law, and Gregory Syren, who attended UC Berkeley as an undergraduate and later attended University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law.

According to the governor’s press release, Kaus will fill the position left vacant by the departure of one of the commissioner judges, who are appointed by an executive committee of the Alameda County court.

“I am happy about it,” Kaus said. “I applied about a year ago. It was kind of funny: I was on jury duty when I found out about (the decision).”

Adam Byer, principal analyst and acting bureau chief at the Alameda County Superior Court, said there are currently 75 authorized superior judges and 10 authorized commissioner judges in the county.

As one familiar with the Bay Area, Kaus said he is excited to handle civil and criminal cases within the county while serving in his new position.

“I’m just going to try and do a good job,” he said. “I’m going to try to be fair, to pay attention and be polite. I’m going to try to be smart.”

Kaus first moved to Berkeley to attend UC Berkeley School of Law and has been in the city ever since. Kaus said he loves the Bay Area’s open-mindedness and the city’s university atmosphere.

“I moved to Berkeley in 1970, and I had every intention of moving back to L.A., but I have been here ever since,” he said.

In the 40 years that Kaus has spent in the area, he has held many positions working in the legal profession. Kaus was a partner of the San Francisco-based litigation firm of Kaus, Kerr & Wagstaffe from 1982 to 1990. He then spent time as a deputy public defender in Contra Costa County and currently works as a partner at Cooper White & Cooper LLP, a law firm in San Francisco.

Kaus says he does not know which courthouse he will be sworn into, but he is expected to begin in late December or January. He hopes to run again after the end of the six-year term.

Contact Alyssa Neumann at aneumann@dailycal.org.

Clarification(s):
A previous version of this article stated that Kaus hopes to maintain the position for six years. In fact, the term for a judge of the Alameda County Superior Court is six years, after which he or she can be re-elected.

The post Berkeley resident and campus alumnus appointed to be Superior Court judge appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Last week, a jury found the group — located at 1820 San Pablo Ave. — in violation of Berkeley city code, stating that cannabis collective operation in commercial zones is illegal. Clarence Soe, landlord of 40 Acres, decided to take legal action against his tenant, Chris Smith, after the city issued several cease-and-desist notices to both parties in December.

The issue of the operation of Berkeley’s medical marijuana collectives has become a tenuous one due to conflict over city zoning code, which makes a particular distinction between medical cannabis “collectives” and “dispensaries.”

The 40 Acres collective is one of two medical marijuana collectives that have come under scrutiny in recent months by city zoning officials. The other collective, Perfect Plants Patient’s Group, or 3PG — which operates at 2840-B Sacramento St. — has been accused by members of the Sacramento Street Improvement Association of contributing to an increase in crime in the area directly surrounding the store.

Soe decided to bring suit against both Smith and 40 Acres after city pressure grew over the collective’s continued operation.

“We feel that the city of Berkeley has taken a more personal role in obstructing our Berkeley grown business,” Smith said in an email.

However, many residents feel that the city has taken a passive role in its enforcement of code violations since the city first issued letters to the 40 Acres and 3PG groups in December.

Although crime has not been a major factor in 40 Acres’ continued operation, incidents in the area surrounding 3PG caused residents to take action by threatening to sue 3PG’s landlord, Lian Rui Tan, with a barrage of small claims suits in October.

“(The 40 Acres suit) is an example of what needed to happen, because the city has not done its job,” said Ryan Kerian, a member of the Sacramento Street Improvement Association, which was founded in response to 3PG’s continued operation.

The City Council will address 3PG’s continued operation at its Tuesday meeting, where it will consider the Zoning Adjustments Board’s Oct. 11 recommendation that the operation be declared a public nuisance due to the assessment that it is located within 600 feet of Longfellow Middle School, which would be a code violation.

However, Eric Thomas, 3PG’s managing member, claims the group is located 619 feet from the school. Additionally, he disputes the fact that littering and violence have increased as a result of 3PG’s operation.

“There are a lot of false claims that these people need to figure out,” Thomas said. “To see Colorado … and Washington ahead of us, where they legalized it for recreational use, and we’re here 15 years later having to work out collective/dispensary wording issues — I think Berkeley has a chance to step up to the plate to be a world leader for California and the rest of areas to follow suit.”

The city would not comment on the results of the 40 Acres lawsuit.

“I expect that the City Council will vote unanimously — or near unanimously — to declare 3PG a public nuisance … but I expect them to take little to no action in shutting down the collective,” Kerian said.

Contact Megan Messerly at mmesserly@dailycal.org.

The post Alameda County Superior Court issues eviction notice to medical marijuana collective appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The ruling requires the university to “make a good faith effort to obtain the information” about its venture capital funds managed by the firms Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital.

“Assuming that the Regents can obtain the fund level information, it is not exempt from disclosure,” said Judge Evelio Grillo in the ruling.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed in January by Reuters America — an international news agency with a branch based in Oakland — that argues that the university is required to release requested information under the California Public Records Act. The act states that the public has a right to “monitor the performance of public investments.”

The lawsuit was filed after Reuters claimed that the UC system did not provide recent data on individual fund details of its investments to Mark Boslet, a senior editor at Thomson Reuters’ Venture Capital Journal.

According to the ruling, UC officials provided Boslet with details about the UC investments’ performance until 2004 but did not release any further data because officials have not received any new information from the venture capital firms. The UC system was also directed by the court to disclose the same investment information in 2003.

Reuters America was not available for comment, and UC officials declined to comment because of the ruling’s tentative nature.
The investments make up about 2 percent of a $70 trillion UC Regents investment portfolio for the UC Retirement Plan, according to the ruling. The fund is the only portion of the investment portfolio in private equity.

Grillo is expected to issue a final ruling Jan. 16 in order to allow either party to appeal the tentative ruling. The tentative ruling could also be changed before January.

Contact Lindsey at llohman@dailycal.org.

The post UC to disclose data on investment funds after Reuters lawsuit appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The eight candidates running for the city’s four rent board commissioner positions have formed two slates — the Progressive Affordable Housing slate and the Berkeley Tenants United for Fairness slate — with the latter aiming to address alleged pro-tenant bias on the commission following the release of a report from the Alameda County Superior Court grand jury in June.

“I don’t think it’s an issue of pro-tenant and anti-tenant as much as it is professionalism and directed oversight,” said Jay James, UC Berkeley postdoctoral student and board candidate with the Tenants United slate.

In addition to the initial response filed in June, the rent board released another response just two weeks ago to the grand jury report stating that while the report contained many factual inaccuracies, the board has voted 8-1 to implement certain changes, such as conducting annual reviews of staff salary and possibly bringing in a third-party expert to peer review the board.

In the June report, the grand jury criticized the board’s hiring procedures, fee levels and its alleged bias in favor of tenants.

“It is important to point out that despite a nine-month investigation, the Civil Grand Jury found nothing illegal or unethical, nor did it find that any of the Board’s activities were outside the scope of the Ordinance,” the response reads.

But Sid Lakireddy, president of the Berkeley Property Owners Association, said the rent board has not done enough to address the issues pointed out by the grand jury, especially regarding its alleged pro-tenant bias.

“I think it’s severely slanted toward the tenantry,” Lakireddy said. “I don’t think (the board has) taken (the report) seriously. The grand jury echos a lot of what property owners have been saying … a lot of abuse and enforcement has been really uneven.”

Lakireddy said landlord registration fees increased from $12 per unit in 1980 to $194 per unit today and that this current rate is “out of line.” Because the board often overextends its involvement with unrelated programs, he said, the costs for property owners are too high to pay for the programs that are sponsored.

The Progressive Affordable Housing slate was formed during the Berkeley Tenant Convention in July, with the Tenants United slate forming soon after. The election ballot will not distinguish between the two slates, allowing voters to select candidates individually.

Incumbents Asa Dodsworth, Igor Tregub and Judy Shelton — along with UC Berkeley alumnus Alejandro Soto-Vigil — are running as a progressive pro-tenant rent board slate to improve effectiveness and continue ensuring affordable housing in Berkeley.

“We have been working tirelessly to raise funds, trying to let our supporters know that we are trying to protect rent control and allow that diversity in Berkeley by keeping the rent board solvent and strong,” Soto-Vigil said.

For the Berkeley Tenants United for Fairness slate — composed of candidates Judy Hunt, Kiran Shenoy, UC Berkeley postdoctoral student Jay James and incumbent Nicole Drake  — many candidates were driven to reform how the rent board operates based on the report.

“I think (the two slates) all share the exact same principles with strong rent protection, (but) I want to restore balance in the rent board,” Drake said. “I want to see a fair vetting process. I want outreach not just for tenants but also for property owners and landlords.”

Tregub — who has been on the board since 2008 — said it has already supported a number of state legislations that benefit the landlord community and, locally, has provided numerous workshops to advise both property owners and tenants.

“If anything, I would characterize the rent board as pro-ordinance,” Tregub said. “Even if we could understand the plight of the tenants and sympathize with them, we have to comply with the ordinance … when we go through public policy analysis, we look at how to benefit both.”

The board is waiting for the grand jury to either report back or suggest further steps, he said.

Daphne Chen covers city government. Contact her at daphnechen@dailycal.org.

The post Two slates running for Berkeley Rent Board appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Ballots in the recall election — which began after KPFA members petitioned to recall elected Pacifica treasurer and KPFA board member Tracy Rosenberg — were originally planned to be opened and counted on Aug. 4. However, Rosenberg and her co-plaintiff, a KPFA member from Walnut Creek, filed a complaint with the court on July 31 due to supposed flaws with the recall election.

In response, the court issued a temporary restraining order to hold off counting the ballots and scheduled a full hearing for Sept. 10 regarding Rosenberg’s injunction request which, if granted, would mean the ballots will not be counted.

According to Rosenberg, the election violated the requirements of the foundation’s bylaws and the California Corporations Code by having a record date, or eligibility date, more than 240 days before the election date. The California Corporations Code states that an election’s record date cannot be more than 60 days before the election while the foundation’s bylaws state the date is 45 days or less.

Additionally, the early Nov. 2011 record date for a June 2012 election resulted in issues with ballot distributions. Current KPFA members, like Rosenberg’s co-plaintiff who joined KPFA after Nov. 2011, did not receive a ballot and could not vote while members with memberships ending by June 2012 did get to vote, according to Rosenberg.

“Many other people joined between November and May who should have received ballots but did not. You’re basically defranchising current members to send ballots to former members,” Rosenberg said. “That is, in my opinion, contrary to the law. We are suing on behalf of those people.”

But issues with the November 2011 record date should not have occurred, according to Margy Wilkinson, chair of the KPFA Local Station Board and a member of SaveKPFA, a coalition of KPFA listeners and unpaid and paid staff that works to support the radio station.

“Ballots were mailed out (in) June when they should have been mailed out by Dec. 30 last year and no later,” Wilkinson said. “The people who petitioned for a recall election did everything right. The fact of the matter is that the Pacifica national board dragged out the appeal. That is entirely their responsibility.”

According to Wilkinson, the election’s delay to June 2012 makes it impossible for the election to have a legitimate record date. The Pacifica national board recall procedures state that a recall election’s record date should be the certification date of the recall petition, which is Nov. 2011 for this particular election.

Consequently, it is difficult to hold an election that includes both former members who were supposed to vote in Dec. 2011 and current members, Wilkinson said.

“I believe in the broadest level of democracy. I would like everyone to have a chance to vote,” Wilkinson said. “However, I just don’t see any way that this could be possible.”

According to Rosenberg, holding a recall election has already cost Pacifica about $20,000 to $30,000. She also added that her term will be up soon, so SaveKPFA pursuing another election should the injunction be granted would only unreasonably further costs.

“This recall election is getting insanely expensive,” she said. “As a non-profit foundation, Pacifica can not afford to spend unlimited money on having recall elections. And my term is up in a year and a half anyways.”

Though SaveKPFA member and longtime KPFA listener member Mark Spindler acknowledged the cost of recall elections, he said KPFA members have a right to pursue a recall election when necessary.

“We believe KPFA is going in the wrong direction as the result of mismanagement and poor leadership … of specifically Tracy Rosenberg,” Spindler said. “She needs to be held accountable for what she has done, and this recall election is the vehicle for that.”

Spindler also pointed out that Pacifica has spent much more money in its attempts to stop a recall election.

“The question should be why is Pacifica teaming with anti-union attorneys and law firms and using over $60,000 of donations to try get rid of the union represented workers of KPFA,” he said.

The post Court places restraining order on recall election for local radio station appeared first on The Daily Californian.

On Tuesday, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo ruled in favor of the Sacramento Bee and the Los Angeles Times by mandating the UC Board of Regents release the complete report of the incident, including the names of every police officer involved.

A task force headed by former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso released a report in March chronicling the events surrounding the pepper spray incident. The report acknowledges that the pepper spray incident was uncalled for, explicitly stating that “the pepper spraying incident … should and could have been prevented.”

However, the report censors the names of numerous police officers, only including the names of two of the officers involved in the incident.

Lt. John Pike and former UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza were the only two officers named in the report. It describes Spicuzza’s unsuccessful attempts to prevent the police officers at UC Davis from using batons and carrying pepper spray. Pike is the only officer mentioned to have chosen to use pepper spray on the UC Davis protesters.

The names of officers were censored following an April agreement between the UC and the Federated University Police Officers Association. The association requested the names of the police officers involved not be included in the report, with the exception of Pike and Spicuzza, for their personal safety. The UC complied with the association’s request after Grillo ruled that the full report could be released only with the names redacted.

On May 23, the Los Angeles Times and the Sacramento Bee sued the UC Regents for withholding the officers’ names despite a California Public Records Act request. According to the lawsuit, the regents “failed to represent the interests of the press and public.”

UC spokesperson Brooke Converse said that UC officials support the judge’s ruling to release the names of the police officers involved.

“The University of California has always been in favor of the release of the full report and will abide by the court’s ruling on this matter,” Converse said.

The post Names of officers involved in UC Davis pepper spray incident will be released appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Seeman, 57, is a graduate of the UC Berkeley School of Law and recently presided over a case in March in which he issued stay-away orders to four Occupy Cal protesters, requiring them to stay at least 100 yards away from the campus except to attend work and class. Seeman’s charges stem from his relationship with Anne Nutting, an elderly neighbor who died in 2010, from whom prosecutors say Seeman stole at least $1.6 million stretching back to 1999.

Alameda County Deputy District Attorney Teresa Drenick said that Seeman was to be arraigned Friday afternoon at Wiley W. Manuel Courthouse.

“This is the first step in legal proceedings to decide what will happen next,” Drenick said.

Seeman entered the lives of his elderly neighbors Lee and Anne Nutting after the fire department deemed their house uninhabitable due to hoarding. According to documents from the Alameda County Superior Court, Seeman, a juvenile law attorney at the time, offered to help them while they moved to the Radisson Hotel near the Berkeley Marina since they did not have any children, family or friends.

After discovering that the Nuttings had $1 million worth of stock certificates and uncashed dividend checks in their home, Seeman obtained a durable power of attorney status in 1999, putting him in charge of managing all of their financial assets and taxes. Lee Nutting passed away in December of that year. The following June, Seeman allegedly began to sell the Nuttings assets by selling their properties in Santa Cruz.

“By August, 2004, Seeman had taken over almost all of the victim’s financial affairs, putting his name on her bank statements as a joint tenant and on her investment accounts as TOD (transferee on death),” the documents read. “At this time there was an excess of ($2.22 million) in the accounts.”

From there, Seeman allegedly went on to sell several of Nutting’s assets, including her art print collection, a Lionel train set and stamp and coin collections, according to court documents.

After convincing Nutting to loan him the $250,000 made from auctioning off the art print collection, he promised he would pay the loan back at a 3 percent monthly interest rate but only made eight payments, according to court documents.

One of the counts of perjury for which Seeman is being charged is for failing to report the loan in his Statement of Economic Interest, a mandatory disclosure which all judges and several other government employees must disclose, according to Drenick.

In 2007, after returning to her home on Santa Barbara Road after nearly nine years living at the hotel, Nutting hired a different attorney who sought to revoke Seeman’s durable power of attorney status and put an end to his involvement in her financial affairs. Seeman allegedly refused to comply.

Before Nutting passed away at the age of 97 in April 2010, her attorney contacted Berkeley Police Department to report that she had been the victim of elder financial abuse at the hands of Seeman.

Seeman was contacted by police soon after and repaid the remainder of the $250,000 loan but refused to disclose an account of his activities as durable power of attorney.

Seeman was arrested Thursday morning after a prolonged investigation. He was being held Thursday evening at a downtown Oakland jail but was freed Friday after posting $525,000 bail.

Seeman’s next court date is scheduled for July 3.

The post Local judge on trial for embezzling millions from elderly neighbor appeared first on The Daily Californian.