Former City Clerk Simonsen says “temporarily” tabling item can be for up to six months

By Allen Payton

Sometimes elected officials and have been in Antioch and elsewhere for years.

In an email to the Herald, the secretary of the American Institute of Parliamentarians, Atul Kapur pointed out that the Antioch School Board, during their special meeting this past Thursday, misused the motion to Table for the two agenda items. Instead, he argues, the board should have used a motion to Postpone to a Time Certain. That’s because a timeframe of 60 days was added to the motion. (See related article)

Furthermore, while a motion to Lay on the Table is not debatable, no further discussion can be held once the motion is made, and there can be no interruption, Kapur explains that a motion to Postpone to a Time Certain is both debatable and amendable. On a side note, a motion to Lay on the Table takes precedence over a motion to Postpone to a Time Certain, as is provided in the graphic, above.

Kapur’s email, with the subject line “Misuse of Table at Antioch school board meeting,” reads:

“Mr. Payton,

In your article on the special meeting of the school board, you refer to the board using the motion Lay on the Table. Unfortunately, it appears that the motion was misused, when the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time was intended.

The motion to Lay on the Table is used “to lay the pending question aside temporarily when something else of immediate urgency has arisen or when something else needs to be addressed before consideration of the pending question is resumed.” RONR (12th ed.) 17:1

That paragraph goes on to state that there is no set time to take up the motion that is laid on the table. It also states that this motion is commonly misused.

The difference is important because the proper motion, Postpone to a Certain Time, is both debatable and amendable while the motion Lay on the Table is neither.

Happy to discuss further if you find that would be useful.

Atul Kapur, MD, CPP-T, PRP

Secretary, American Institute of Parliamentarians

Certified Professional Parliamentarian and

Teacher of Parliamentary Procedure

Professional Registered Parliamentarian”

UPDATE: Former City Clerk Simonsen Weighs In

However, according to former Antioch City Clerk Arne Simonsen, who earned the title of Master Municipal Clerk, “It was okay to use the Motion to Table which is not debatable.  It could be brought back later. But they could have gone the other route as was noted in the communication you received.”

Asked if a motion to Lay on the Table – which Kapur argues is only to be used temporarily – be done indefinitely, Simonsen responded, “it is often used to ‘kill’ an item, like the legislature putting a bill in the Suspense File. The definition of temporary is up for debate. But temporary is normally considered to be up to six months.”

Therefore, Trust Mary Rocha’s motion to table without including a date certain was allowable and any further interruption, debate or discussion should have been stopped by Board President Ellie Householder, and the substitute motion by Trustee Antonio Hernandez should have not been considered or voted on. Yet, once Rocha added the 60-day timeframe, the motion should have been changed to a motion to Postpone to a Time Certain.

 

Multi-agency effort included CHP, Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office, Pittsburg, Hercules, San Pablo Police Departments and East Bay Regional Parks

By Sergeant Brian Rose #4309, Field Services Bureau, Antioch Police Department

On Friday, September 3, 2021, Antioch Police officers responded to the report of a takeover robbery in-progress at a jewelry store inside of Somersville Towne Center. The call stated multiple subjects were robbing the establishment and the frightened employee ran to the back of the store and locked himself inside a room. Officers arrived and immediately confirmed three suspects entered the business, Ron’s Jewelers, and one of them used a hammer to smash open display cases. All three suspects then grabbed approximately $80,000- $90,000 in jewelry and fled from the store. Officers quickly obtained a description of the suspect’s vehicle to include its license plate.

A radio broadcast containing the suspect’s vehicle information was rapidly disseminated and moments later, officers from the Pittsburg Police Department located the car which was travelling westbound on Highway 4. When officers attempted to stop the vehicle, the driver failed to yield, and a pursuit ensued that spanned across several cities and involved numerous police agencies to include air support from CCCSO, CHP, and East Bay Regional Parks.

At one point, the suspect vehicle briefly stopped in the City of Richmond and one of the passengers fled from the car on foot. This suspect ran into a backyard and was subsequently taken into custody. This suspect was wearing a backpack that contained a large amount of jewelry.

An officer from the California Highway Patrol continued to pursue the suspect vehicle which still contained the two remaining suspects. The pursuit eventually terminated after the suspect vehicle was involved in a collision on Interstate 80 near, University Avenue in Berkeley. The two remaining occupants ran from the car after the collision but were apprehended by officers from the Hercules and San Pablo Police Departments.

The suspects, ages 28, 30 and 32, will be booked into the Martinez Detention Facility for numerous charges to include conspiracy, robbery, burglary, and evading arrest.

The Antioch Police Department and the victims in this case would like to thank all the involved law enforcement agencies for their assistance during this incident.

Anyone with information is encouraged to call the Antioch Police Department non-emergency line at (925) 778-2441. You may also text-a-tip to 274637 (CRIMES) using the key word ANTIOCH.

Householder interrupts reading of public comments, board majority wouldn’t allow all of them to be read

By Allen Payton

The Antioch School Board, during their hastily called special meeting on Thursday night in response to last Friday’s incident with a violent student at Antioch High School, heard from angry members of the public on both sides of the issue and from district staff, on the district’s Use of Force Policies and Procedures and Board of Education Notification Policies and Procedures. Both items were tabled for up to 60 days on split votes, but not before Board President Ellie Householder interrupted the reading of public comments on the first item and the board majority voted to prevent all of them from being read. (See related articles here and here)

Before reading of the public comments began, Householder offered the trustees the opportunity to speak.

“Did you receive many calls on this?” Trustee Mary Rocha asked Superintendent Stephanie Anello.

“I didn’t get a single call,” Anello responded.

“I called the administrators at Antioch High School, and they said they did get calls from people thanking them for this not going any further,” Rocha stated.

During the public comments, many were scathing against Householder for her posting of the video on her official Facebook page and calling the special meeting.

Householder Stops Reading of Public Comments

“I’m sorry I’m having a difficult time. The following comments have nothing to do with policies and procedures,” Householder said, interrupting the reading of the public comments. “We don’t have general comments on the docket, tonight. The comments need to be specific to the topic.”

“That will be hard to do on this,” Anello said. “There are some negative ones on me coming up. We can take 10 minutes to review them.”

“There are 60 pages of comments,” said Director of Education Services Amy Bettencourt who was reading the comments.

“Are we either referring to the incident or referring to you?” Rocha asked of Householder.

“No. Dealing with policies,” Householder responded. We are getting into dangerous territory talking about the student. People can say what they want about me, that’s fine.”

“There’s no name attached to it, so it’s about the incident,” Rocha said. “It is because of this incident that we are having this meeting.”

“We do not have on our agenda public comments,” Householder said. “So, I’m not going to sit here and listen to comments bashing this student.”

“I hear more of the comments about you,” Rocha said.

Trustee Antonio Hernandez then made a motion to take a break for staff to review the public comments and remove those not dealing with the agenda item.

“As the reader, I am uncomfortable determining what to read or not,” Bettencourt said.

“Maybe we can get on a conference call,” Anello said to Bettencourt. “This could take longer than 10 minutes.”

Board Majority Votes to Prevent All Public Comments from Being Read

Hernandez, Householder and Lewis voted in favor of the motion. Hack and Rocha voted against. The board then took a break at about 6:25 p.m. agreeing to meet back in about 30 minutes.

The board meeting resumed about 25 minutes later and the reading of public comments, including those negative about board members, Anello and the local media, including this publication, continued. Several were in support of Householder calling the meeting and wanting the board to investigate the incident.

Motion To Table on First Agenda Item Passes 4-1

“I really do view tonight as the first conversation of many conversations, so we will have to meet again on this item,” Householder.

Rocha than made a motion to the table the item.

Householder ignored Rocha’s motion and continued to seek the direction of a majority of board members.

Anello made a point of order that “there is a motion on the table.”

“I didn’t hear a motion,” Householder said.

“I said I move we table the item,” Rocha.

Hack seconded the motion.

“Every day we don’t have a policy on this is another day something like this can happen,” said Hernandez. “I’m very passionate about this. Just because people are doing their best doesn’t mean there aren’t pathways for doing things better.”

“I think I need to make another point of order,” Anello said. “A vote needs to be held on a motion to table.”

Lewis then attempted to amend the motion for a date certain.

Rocha said her motion was to “allow our superintendent to give us feedback.”

“Do they go to the class and talk to the young man?” she asked about how similar situations are handled by school staff. “What’s the next step, then the next step?

“I think this is a healthy conversation. But until we have a conversation about what the policies are,” Lewis responded.

“I’m not sure how much time the superintendent needs,” Rocha.

“I actually do like, personally, setting the date,” Householder. “Can we table it and provide direction around this?”

“I will add to my motion 60 days,” Rocha then said. “At this time, I call for the motion to be voted on.”

Hack said, “I’m amenable to that as long as Stephanie has enough time.”

Anello said that it was.

“As long as you table something you have to vote on it and not continue to discuss it,” Anello said.

The motion to table passed 4-1 with Householder voting no.

Robert’s Rules of Order requires the end of discussion and debate, without interruption, and an immediate vote on a motion to table without discussion on the motion, either.

Motion To Table Second Agenda Item Passes 3-2

The board then heard the few public comments on the next item, entitled, “Board of Education Notification Policies and Procedures,” with much the same themes.

“Like I said, this is going to be somewhat similar as the last item,” Householder said.

Hernandez, “we have this opportunity to discuss this, here, not in the future.”

Rocha then made another motion to table the item for 60 days. It was seconded by Hack, again.

Hernandez attempted to make a substitute motion to give staff 14 days to return with information on the matter. Householder seconded his motion.

He then argued incorrectly that a substitute motion takes precedent over a motion to table.

A discussion continued about the motions.

In spite of points of order by Anello that a substitute motion did not take precedent, Householder disagreed because she said “it doesn’t make sense” and held a vote on the substitute motion. It failed 2-2-1 with Lewis abstaining saying he wasn’t sure about the motion taking precedence over a motion to table.

The original motion to table was then brought back, and Lewis asked if was “up to 60 days” to which Householder and Rocha agreed.

Hernandez then said there had to be a vote on the motion without discussion.

The motion passed 3-2 with Hernandez and Householder voting no.

The meeting was then adjourned at 8:55 p.m.

The board’s next regular meeting will be held next Wednesday, Sept. 8 at 7:00 p.m.

Publisher’s Notes:

During the meeting some incorrect things were said by members of the public during public comments about the Herald and me. The following is to set the record straight.

Just a quick response to the baseless comment just made about me. I have never had lunch or dinner with either Superintendent Stephanie Anello nor former Antioch Chief of Police Allan Cantando, and have never even been invited, even though I’ve known them for at least 15 to 20 years. As for reporting what our elected and appointed officials do, we will continue to do so, and give all involved the opportunity to offer their perspective on a matter in which they’re involved, regardless of any friendship that might exist or not. Unfortunately, not all respond and we can only publish what people share with us or on social media, or what we must obtain through Public Records Act requests.

As for the email exchange between Householder and Anello included in yesterday’s article, for which I submitted a Public Records Act request, yesterday “for any and all communications regarding tomorrow’s special board meeting”, government officials are required by state law to provide information, which isn’t privileged, to the media and public upon request.

While they have up to 10 days to do so and can extend that for another 14 days if determined it is needed to research, review and make any redactions of privileged information, officials know the media works on deadlines and there is time sensitivity for publishing the news so the public can know about their government. Thus officials provide the requested information as quickly as possible.

The special meeting wasn’t announced by Householder on Facebook until Tuesday evening and wasn’t placed on the district’s website as an official meeting until Wednesday afternoon. So, no Public Records Act request could have been made about any communications about it, until then. Anello provided the very few documents that fulfilled the request that same day.

Allen Payton, Publisher

Application deadline Sept. 30

Contra Costa County (County) is accepting applications for the upcoming Member at Large opening on the Aviation Advisory Committee (AAC). The term begins March 1, 2022, upon appointment by the Airport Committee, and expires on February 28, 2025. Residents of and/or employees in Contra Costa County are eligible to fill this position to represent all County stakeholders in matters related to Buchanan Field and Byron Airports.

The AAC serves as an advisory group to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (Board) to provide advice and recommendations to the Board on aviation matters related to the Contra Costa County Airports.  The AAC typically meets once per month on the second Thursday of the month at 10:00 a.m., in person or via Zoom during the pandemic at either Buchanan Field or Byron Airport.

Application forms can be obtained from the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors by calling (925) 655-2000 or at:  https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/3418/Appointed-Bodies-Committees-Commissions.  Applications should be submitted online or returned to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, 1^st Floor, Martinez, CA  94553, no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 30, 2021.  Applicants should plan to be available for public/Zoom interviews, tentatively scheduled for December 8, 2021 at 11:00 am at the Airports Committee Meeting.

For more information on the Contra Costa County Airports or the AAC visit us at www.ContraCostaCountyAirports.org or by calling (844) Fly-ToUs or (844) 359-8687.

CONTACT: Keith Freitas at (844) 359-8687, or via email at: airport.team@airport.cccounty.us

 

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) reminds travelers that tolling operations for the new 11-mile Express Lane along southbound Interstate 680 from Martinez through Walnut Creek have now started.

By linking with the existing Express Lane from Rudgear Road in Walnut Creek to Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon, this will create a continuous 22-mile southbound I-680 Express Lane through Contra Costa County.

The stretch of I-680 from Marina Vista Blvd. in Martinez to Rudgear Road currently operates as a traditional carpool lane. Tolling rules include:

• All vehicles must have a FasTrak® toll tag to use the Express Lanes;
• Carpools with two or more people, vanpools, buses and motorcycles travel toll-free with a FasTrak Flex toll tag set to the 2 or 3+ position;
• Solo drivers of eligible clean-air vehicles (CAVs) pay half-price tolls with a FasTrak CAV toll tag. Eligible CAVs are those with red, purple, orange or blue decals; and
• Other solo drivers pay the full toll to use the Express Lanes with either a standard FasTrak toll tag or a FasTrak Flex tag set to the 1 position.

Operating hours for Express Lanes are weekdays from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m. Tolls rise as traffic increases and fall as traffic declines. Digital signs over the roadway display the toll rates for various destinations. Customers always pay the toll displayed when they enter the Express Lane, even if toll rates change during their trip. Toll-paying customers pay for each toll zone they enter. There are five southbound toll zones from Martinez to San Ramon.

Express Lanes are designed to keep traffic moving reliably without congestion, and to encourage travelers to carpool or use transit to get a free and faster trip. Drivers can visit 511.org to learn everything they need to know to use Bay Area Express Lanes, how to find a carpool match, and how to sign up for FasTrak.

 

Emails show she wanted to have board “investigate” last Friday’s incident at Antioch High; superintendent refuses claiming violations of employees’ and student’s rights, her contract and Board Policy

By Allen Payton

In response to last Friday’s incident with a violent student at Antioch High School, which was caught on video that she posted on her official Facebook page, Antioch School Board President Ellie Householder has called a special meeting for Thursday, Sept. 2 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss “District-wide Use of Force Policies and Procedures”. (See related article)

Householder posted an announcement of the meeting as an event on Facebook on Tuesday, August 31, at about 2:00 p.m. but it wasn’t posted on the district’s website until Wednesday afternoon.

Although the board president has the authority to call special meetings, which require just a 24-hour public notification, board policy requires it be an item of urgency that can’t wait for the next regular meeting, which requires a 72-hour public notification. The next regularly board meeting is scheduled for next Wed., Sept. 8.

Attempts to reach Householder to ask why the matter couldn’t wait until next week to be discussed were unsuccessful before publication time.

In response to a Public Records Act request, emails between Householder and Superintendent Stephanie Anello show the board president wanted the board to investigate the incident writing, “I have consulted with Vice President Dr. Lewis, and he agreed there are unanswered questions regarding the video of the incident at Antioch High on 8/27.

Please take this email as my official notice calling for a Special Meeting for Thursday, September 2nd at 6 PM, to investigate this incident. There will only need to be one item for discussion/action by the Board: ‘Inquiry into Social Media Post Circulated on August 27th incident at Antioch High School.’

• I would like AUSD staff to be involved for questions, including administration and site safety.
• Additionally, please invite Strategic Threat Management since we contract with them.
• Please attach with this agenda item (1) Strategic Threat Management’s contract, (2) job duties for site safety personnel, and (3) and [sic] written policies that outline how violent situations regarding students is [sic] handled – this can be Antioch High specific, Board Policy, the District’s safety plan – anything to help the board understand different scenarios and responses.
• Lastly, please provide any data we have on student arrests for the last 4-5 years, including but not limited to number of arrests, reasons, school site, grade, gender, and race. Typically, I would only ask for 3 years of data, however, because of COVID, I am extending that time span.”

Anello agreed to schedule the meeting, but refused the remainder of Householder’s requests writing, “I am happy to schedule a Special Meeting. Unfortunately, I can’t agree to the agenda items you requested below for the following reasons:

• This is an ongoing investigation (at the time of your request, staff has had less than 24 business hours to investigate);
• You are asking me to violate employee’s rights;
• You are asking me to violate a student’s right to privacy;
• You are breaching my employment contract;
• You are violating Board Policy;

I’m sure there are many other ethical violations included in this request.

The one item I do believe the Board may discuss at this time is the STM contract. However, I want to go on record as stating I believe that absent of an investigation, this is inappropriate at this time. However, if this is what you would like the Board to consider, please advise and I will calendar the meeting.”

In response, Householder requested the contact information for the district’s attorney.

See complete email exchange between Householder and district staff regarding the special meeting, here: 083121 emails Householder & district staff CPRA 090121

Lewis Responds

When Lewis was asked to confirm his conversation with Householder, and if he supported having the board investigate the incident and her requests of Anello he responded, “No. I mentioned that it should review the procedures since the meeting had been called. That conversation happened after the decision to have the meeting was determined.”

Meeting Viewing and Public Comment Information

The meeting will be livestreamed and can be viewed at https://youtu.be/F-Dsas_w-s0. Persons wishing to make a public comment on items on the agenda can submit their comments until 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Comments can be submitted via an online form at https://tinyurl.com/ausd-public-comment-card or by email to kelliecavallaro@antiochschools.net. Comments received by 4:00 p.m. will be read to the public during the meeting.

Requirements for Calling Special Board Meetings

Education Code 35144 – Special Meetings:

A special meeting of the governing board of a school district may be called at any time by the presiding officer of the board, or by a majority of the members thereof, by delivering personally or by mail written notice to each member of the board, and to each local newspaper of general circulation, radio, or television station requesting notice in writing. The notice shall be delivered personally or by mail at least 24 hours before the time of the meeting as specified in the notice. The call and notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted. No other business shall be considered at those meetings by the governing board. The written notice may be dispensed with as to any member who at or prior to the time the meeting convenes files with the clerk or secretary of the board a written waiver of notice. The waiver may be given by telegram. The written notice may also be dispensed with as to any member who is actually present at the meeting at the time it convenes.

The call and notice shall be posted at least 24 hours prior to the special meeting in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public and district employees.

(Amended by Stats. 1986, Ch. 641, Sec. 1.)

From Government Code – Brown Act – Open Meeting Laws; Special Meetings:

a) A special meeting may be called at any time by the presiding officer of the legislative body of a local agency, or by a majority of the members of the legislative body, by delivering written notice to each member of the legislative body and to each local newspaper of general circulation and radio or television station requesting notice in writing and posting a notice on the local agency’s Internet Web site, if the local agency has one. The notice shall be delivered personally or by any other means and shall be received at least 24 hours before the time of the meeting as specified in the notice. The call and notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted or discussed. No other business shall be considered at these meetings by the legislative body. The written notice may be dispensed with as to any member who at or prior to the time the meeting convenes files with the clerk or secretary of the legislative body a written waiver of notice. The waiver may be given by telegram. The written notice may also be dispensed with as to any member who is actually present at the meeting at the time it convenes.

The call and notice shall be posted at least 24 hours prior to the special meeting in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public.

AUSD policy BB 9320 Meetings and Notices regarding who can call a Special Meeting:

Special meetings of the Board may be called at any time by the presiding officer or a majority of the Board members.  However, a special meeting shall not be called regarding the salary, salary schedule, or other compensation of the Superintendent, assistant superintendent, or other management employee as described in Government Code 3511.1. (Government Code 54956)

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

By U.S. Department of Justice

Sutter Health, a California-based health care services provider, and several affiliated entities including Sutter Bay Medical Foundation (dba Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Sutter East Bay Medical Foundation, and Sutter Pacific Medical Foundation) and Sutter Valley Medical Foundation (dba Sutter Gould Medical Foundation and Sutter Medical Foundation) (collectively, “Sutter Health”), have agreed to pay $90 million to resolve allegations that Sutter Health violated the False Claims Act by knowingly submitting inaccurate information about the health status of beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage Plans.

Under Medicare Advantage, also known as the Medicare Part C program, Medicare beneficiaries have the option of enrolling in managed health care insurance plans called Medicare Advantage Plans. The plans are paid a capitated, or per-person, amount to provide Medicare-covered benefits to beneficiaries who enroll in one of their plans. Payments to plans are based on demographic information and the health status of each plan beneficiary. In general, plans receive larger payments for beneficiaries with more severe diagnoses.

Sutter Health, headquartered in Sacramento, contracted to provide health care services to California beneficiaries enrolled in certain plans. In exchange, Sutter Health received a portion of the payments for treating the beneficiaries under its care.

The government alleged that Sutter Health knowingly submitted unsupported diagnosis codes for certain patient encounters for beneficiaries under its care. These unsupported diagnosis codes caused inflated payments to be made to the plans and to Sutter Health. The lawsuit further alleged that, once Sutter Health became aware of these unsupported diagnosis codes, it failed to take sufficient corrective action to identify and delete additional unsupported diagnosis codes.

“The government relies on health care providers, including those furnishing services to Medicare Part C beneficiaries, to submit accurate information to ensure proper payment,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sarah E. Harrington of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “Today’s result sends a clear message that we will hold health care providers responsible if they knowingly provide or fail to correct information that is untruthful.”

“Today’s settlement exemplifies our commitment to fighting fraud in the Medicare program,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Stephanie M. Hinds for the Northern District of California. “Health care providers who flout the law need to know that my office will hold accountable those who pad their bottom line at taxpayer expense.”

“The knowing submission of inaccurate information to Medicare diverts funds from this vital health care program, which is a disservice to patients needing care,” said Special Agent in Charge Steven J. Ryan for the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to protect the integrity of federal health care programs and hold accountable entities who engage in false claims practices.”

In connection with the settlement, Sutter Health, Sutter Bay Medical Foundation and Sutter Valley Medical Foundation entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). The CIA requires, among other things, that Sutter Health implement a centralized risk assessment program as part of its compliance program and hire an Independent Review Organization to annually review a sample of Sutter Health’s Medicare Advantage patients’ medical records and associated diagnoses data.

The civil settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act by Kathleen Ormsby, a former employee of Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Under those provisions, a private party can file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of any recovery. The Act permits the government to intervene in such lawsuits, as it has done in this case as to claims submitted for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Although the United States did not intervene as to claims submitted by the remaining Sutter affiliates, Ms. Ormsby continued to pursue those claims, some of which are also being resolved by this settlement. The qui tam case is captioned United States ex rel. Ormsby v. Sutter Health, et al., No. 15-CV-01062-LB (N.D. Cal.).

The resolution obtained in this matter resulted from a coordinated effort between the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, with assistance from HHS-OIG.

The investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Tips and complaints from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement, can be reported to the Department of Health and Human Services at 800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477).

The matter was handled by Attorneys Olga Yevtukhova, Jennifer J. Koh, Thomas Morris and Lyle Gruby of the Civil Division’s Fraud Section and by Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wolinsky for the Northern District of California, with assistance from Jonathan Birch.

Sutter Health Responds

Sutter Health on Monday, Aug. 30, 2021 announced that it has entered into an agreement with the federal government and a private plaintiff to resolve a False Claims Act lawsuit filed in 2015 involving Medicare Advantage claims related to its medical foundation operations. The matter was partially resolved in April 2019 for $30 million (a fact not included by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in its press release regarding the settlement). Under the follow-on agreement announced today, Sutter will pay an additional $60 million (not $90 million) to fully resolve the litigation. The agreement makes clear that Sutter and its medical foundation affiliates admit no liability in agreeing to settle the matter.

As part of this resolution, Sutter has also concurrently entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The CIA, Sutter’s first, is intended to promote compliance with federal healthcare program requirements over a period of five years and includes specific elements that must be in place and monitored.

Sutter’s Ethics and Compliance Services team is responsible for overseeing Sutter’s compliance with the CIA. Sutter looks forward to collaborating with OIG over the term of the agreement. In 2017, PricewaterhouseCoopers conducted a compliance program assessment finding Sutter’s program to be effective, with several areas identified as leading practices. Sutter has since maintained and enhanced these program elements and is well-prepared to implement the terms of the agreement.

Today’s agreements bring closure to a long-running dispute, allowing Sutter to avoid the uncertainty and further expense of protracted litigation, and enabling a constructive relationship with the government as we work together under the CIA.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability.

 

 

Discount will apply to all fares on Clipper and will be stackable with Youth, Senior, RTC, Clipper Start and Gator Pass Clipper discounts.

BART will offer a special promotion of 50% off all fares on Clipper for the entire month of September 2021.

The discount will apply to all fares on Clipper and will be stackable with other Clipper discounts. That means 50% off will be given on top of already discounted Clipper cards such as Youth, Senior, RTC, Clipper Start, and the Gator Pass.

The reduced fare will be automatically deducted when using Clipper at the fare gates. Our online Trip Planner and Fare Calculator have been updated to show discounted fares during the month of September. While BART will share discounted fares with other apps and websites , we can’t guarantee that non-BART sources will display them.

Printed fare charts at vending machines in each station will not be changed for the month of September but a large decal will be posted noting there is 50% off the published fares.

BART is extending the discount to welcome riders back to the system and to thank those who have continued to ride throughout the pandemic. BART’s ridership continues to grow each week. Current weekday ridership is at 100,000 trips, representing 25% of pre-COVID weekday ridership. Weekends are recovering at a faster rate. Weekend ridership is at 45K-65K trips, representing 40% of pre-COVID weekend ridership.

As of September 1, the various transit agencies that connect with BART will have new schedules in place that offer improved connections between systems. Many agencies are also offering discounts and other special promotions during the month of September.

Visit www.AllAboardBayArea.com for details on how all 27 Bay Area agencies are collaborating to deliver services that will restart our region and get people where they need to go.

Get Clipper

The discount is only available when using Clipper. It is not available on magstripe paper tickets. 98.6% of our riders use Clipper cards. There is a one-time $3 fee to purchase a new Clipper card from a BART station vending machine. Clipper is currently offering free Clipper cards when setting up a new Clipper card using the new Clipper app. The card is also free if you  order it online and set up automatic reloading.

Clipper Discount Cards

BART’s 50% off in September promotion is stackable with other Clipper discounts available for youth, seniors, riders with disabilities, and low-income adult riders. Proof of eligibility is required for discount Clipper cards and therefore are not available at station vending machines.

• Youth 5-18 years old get 50% off BART with a youth Clipper card.
• Seniors 65 and over get 62.5% off BART with a Senior Clipper card.
• Qualifying low-income adult riders get 20% off BART with Clipper START.
• Riders with qualifying disabilities get 62.5% off BART with the RTC Clipper card.

Youth, senior, and START cards are all free and BART does not charge for RTC cards when obtained at our customer service window at the Lake Merritt Station.