UPDATE: 08.15.2014: RECALL DOCUMENTS WILL BE REDONE ACCORDING TO PROPONENTS.
UPDATE: The exact code of California Election Code Section 11021:
11021. A copy of the notice of intention shall be served by personal delivery, or by certified mail, on the officer sought to be recalled. Within seven days of serving the notice of intention, the original thereof shall be filed, along with an affidavit of the time and manner of service, with the elections official or, in the case of the recall of a state officer, the Secretary of State. A separate notice of intention shall be filed for each officer sought to be recalled.
The exact code of California Election Code Section 11021 states that within seven days the original along with the affidavit is to be filed with elections official. Still states there is a seven day window.
UPDATE: According to State law:
A copy of the notice of intention must be served by personal delivery or by certified mail on the officer sought to be recalled. In addition, the original of the notice of intention, along with an affidavit of the time and manner of service, must be filed with the Secretary of State within seven days of being served. A separate notice of intention must be filed for each officer sought to be recalled.
At City Council, Dvonne Pitruzzello first gave a packet of the original signatures without the affidavit to City Clerk Colleen Nichol. Councilman Jim Perry was served after Council was adjourned. Nichol states that the affidavit must be filed with her. State law contradicts this, it states the Secretary of State. According to Nichols letter to Council, she states that the affidavit has yet to be filed. According to the law, proponents have seven days from the date recall papers were served to file. Because of the failure to file, Nichol states that the process is deemed deficient, but not specific. Do we think the City is just being the City and being difficult with are request, yes..
According to the Press Enterprise:
They served Perry with a required notice after Tuesday night’s council meeting, but City Clerk Colleen Nicol said Wednesday that the recall proponents failed to file a signed affidavit from the server, along with other paperwork.
Again, do we think that the City of Riverside is playing games with the letter of the law? Are they setting themselves up for law suit on this issue?
UPDATE: We are attempting to clarify issues with regard to the Perry Recall. Prior to the recall, meetings were appointed with City of Riverside, City Clerk, Colleen Nichol as to the process of a recall. Be it known, to be the first time in the history of the City of Riverside to occur. Corroborations with the Registrar of Voters also occurred to clarify proceedings. We will keep you posted. The letter below is from City Clerk Colleen Nichol regarding the proponents failure to file a signed affidavit from the server and other paper work. Questions arose as proponents believe that the letter was prematurely sent to the Alicia Robinson of the Press Enterprise. According to State Law, allows 7 days to file after serving. On Tuesday 12, 2014 at City Council, City Clerk Colleen Nichol’s was present at the time of service of recall papers to Councilman Perry. Nichol’s accepted the packed with no response of any inaccuracy to proponents. We will keep you updated.
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
What was told regarding recall procedures was much different that what was reported in Alicia Robinson article regarding this issue. It appear to be slanted with reference to her article. The question we have, is City Hall protecting Perry? Is the PE protecting Perry? We will keep you posted.
According to his response at City Council on August 12,2014 he feels that this “group of people.” in reality these individuals are just residents, but he states that they are attempting to, as in mafia terms, “strong arm” him…
According to constituents in Councilman Perry’s Ward 6, they were not happy with the vote to approve and increase sewer rates, and not asking the question, as others on the dais asked, “Why did this all happened?” What happened to all the money in the Sewer fund and where did it go? Why is the debt service increasing substantially over the last five years? Why did he (Perry) attempt to block a request by a fellow councilman to bring in State Controller, John Chiang (who is actually a really nice guy), to come to our city? Why block a request for the controller in his duty to find the truth of alleged misappropriation of tax payer monies? Who would be against that? Perry is. He suggested to create a workshop to discuss the logistics of how this will be done. Come on Perry…money in, money out..was it done appropriately? The State Controller can do that. Why is this so difficult? Is it because of political obligations? Which may trump constituent obligations?
At a finance committee meeting on Wednesday May 14, 2014 which included Assistant City Manager Belinda Graham, Scott Catlett, Brent Mason, Councilman Jim Perry; Councilman Paul Davis asked the question as to why the staff seems to always go nuts every time we (council) ask a question? This is probably very telling. Staff is not use to being ask relevant questions in TMC’s eyes and may construe this as interfering with staff work or creating a fabrication of a hostile work environment.. Thus, we now see two councilman who asked the tough questions, and are now being investigated. Who are the suspects at the crux of this investigation? Councilman Perry asked at this meeting that a Workshop Committee be formed, for the record, to look into a forensic audit by the State Controllers office. With this in mind, two councilman, Davis and Soubirous, asked the question of why this all happened, regarding the issue of increase sewer rates. Where did the initial bond money go? Debt service, via bonds was only $817,000.00 in 2008, but jumped to a whopping $17,472,000.00 in 2013, and will continue to increase thereafter..Why?
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
Anyone would find this jump quite remarkable. Only two councilman questioned this, doing their due diligence to defend the taxpayer. This would appear to be quite simple, you would think.. The two councilman went forward to asked for the services of the the State Controllers Office, John Chiang. Of course, you could only imagine, this idea made everyone unbearably nervous. If everything is on the up and up, and doing the right thing, why should anyone be nervous?
Another question that arose, is the taxpayer inadvertently paying for the “Purple Pipe?” Which former Public Utilities General Manager Dave Wright attempted to pass with a new tax..fee..etc..etc..or otherwise. He was also one who seem to leave town in a hurry, for a job in Las Vegas. I would imagine the moniker would be “Whatever happens in Riverside, stays in Vegas..permanently!” Well, it didn’t happen as a result of few community “watch dogs, critics, hatters, wingnuts or gadflys” But what we know, the City of Riverside will not take a defeat laying down. Did they just include it in the Sewer Master Plan? Again, if it was, this can be construed as another project that does not benefit the constituents directly, as it should, but the constituent will have to pay for it, for whoever it benefits. If in fact this is true, we may have a subsequent violation of Proposition 218, and will this set the City of Riverside, again, for another ‘law suit?”
The firing of the accounting firm of Moss Adams mid contract raised questions as to why? Per public request act, we asked for the emails of all correspondence between Moss Adams and Chief Financial Officer Brent Mason. The first, shows what appears to be a rather annoyed Brent Mason, when responding to Moss Adams billed amount of $41.250 to the City of Riverside. Mason responds by questioning the $41,250.00, and states his current records shows the City to owe $1.80. Mason ask if Moss Adams would like the $1.80 paid immediately? Did Moss Adams offend Mr. Mason?
In one instance Moss Adams states that didn’t receive all material new agreements or new contracts as requested. Moss Adams actually states that they “stumbled upon them,” as a result, this required significant follow up in order to effectively synthesize a determination.
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE, HEY RUSTY, YOU ARE ON TOP OF THE HEAP!
There were new changes in the Teeter plan (California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 4701-4717) permits counties to pay property tax revenues to local agencies based on assessments amounts. Standard accepted literature suggests that property tax revenue should only be accrued within 60 days of years end. Instead, questions were raised when the City added a another 30 days, which included the month of October. Reason being according to Mason, is “it made our property tax receivable number, a more solid accrual.” According to Mason, the “exact amount of collection was assured in October.” Ninety days, instead of the accepted 60 days…
So far Councilman Perry has not come out to take a stand on what we believe at TMC, is the railroading of two Councilman, Paul Davis and Mike Soubouris. Since there is no stand, there must be acceptance of spending up to 100K of taxpayer monies to investigate issues of unknown origins, which, evidently involve City of Riverside employees. These employees claim that two councilman interfered with their work. Some claim they caused a hostile work environment. Once the City of Riverside revealed who these complainants were through the public records request act, it left us leaving us to believe there may be a political conspiratorial angle to this. Perry, has diverted the attention of a State Forensic Audit to a workshop. Questions arose regarding bond payments in 2008 to a Master Plan Construction. In the interim, bond monies were diverted for other uses, other than the intended use. Therefore, two councilman came up to the plate, requesting the State Controllers Office come in and review the City of Riverside’s books. Then all hell broke loose. Councilman Jim Perry suggested a workshop would be in order to define the terms of the forensic audit. In the real world, a workshop is not necessary, the suggestion of malfeasance should be enough for one in a leadership position to call for a review of the constituents monies, which may not have been appropriately dispensed. Only an elect can call the State Controllers office for a forensic audit.
Proposed workshop, signed by Councilman Jim Perry. Is this really necessary Jim? When the City needed 100K to investigate two Councilman, no one complained about that. When we needed money to subsidize the Fox Theater, which has always run in the red, no one complained about that. When we spent $150K for the former City Manager Brad Hudson to investigate himself, no one complained about that! We even used that same law firm to investigate issues of misappropriation of Police Asset Forfeiture under Chief Sergio Diaz., no one complained. They actually, and surprisingly came to a favorable conclusion! Who would have thought? Maybe Chief Diaz is right! The community should stay out of areas they know nothing about…
Regressing, the whole forensic audit came about when figures and questions asked by two councilman, Soubiroius and Davis, didn’t appear logically. Questions, were asked as to what actually happened to all the bond monies. Did they go to their intended purpose. Why did some of the accounting entries and posting didn’t conform to standard accounting practices. In an email sent by Councilman Paul Davis to CFO Brent Mason, Davis asked to verify and confirm some questions he had regarding the sewer.
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
PURPOSE OF THE RECALL: Reason being Perry failed to ask and support the question, as to why, Sewer monies were not in the coffers when needed. Questionable accounting practices were brought to the forefront by two Council persons, whereby the call to a forensic audit was in order and would actually benefit the taxpayer. THE INCREASE IN SEWER RATES! WHEREBY HE DIDN’T EVEN ASK THE QUESTION AS TO WHY THE INCREASE IS NEEDED. ONCE AGAIN THE INCREASE IS NEEDED, BUT WHAT HAPPENED IN BETWEEN THAT THE CITY ARRIVED TO THIS POSITION OF GEOMETRICALLY INCREASING DEBT SERVICE? CITY OF RIVERSIDE CONSTITUENTS WANT TO KNOW! A FORENSIC AUDIT WOULD SIMPLY FOLLOW HOW TAXPAYER MONIES WERE USED.
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CIRCULATE RECALL PETITION: TO THE HONORABLE City of Riverside City Clerk: Pursuant to Section 11020, California Elections Code, the undersigned registered qualified voters of Ward 6 of the City of Riverside, in the State of California, hereby give notice that we are the proponents of a recall petition and that we intend to seek your recall and removal from the office of Ward 6 Councilman, in the City of Riverside, California, and to demand election of a successor in that office. The grounds for the recall are as follows:
That Councilman Perry has failed to represent the best interest of his constituents by voting to increase their sewer rates, while opposing a forensic audit by the State of California Controller’s Office to determine if rates paid in previous years have been misappropriated or misused by the City. This despite the City of Riverside Finance Director’s representation that if the State Controller found no wrongdoing, the audit would be at “no cost” to the City. Councilman Perry also voted to keep the red light cameras in the City of Riverside despite overwhelming opposition from his constituency and the City as a whole. Councilman Perry’s constituency has no confidence in his ability to represent their interest.
In February 2014, a citizens group in Glendale, California filed suit against the City of Glendale for transferring funds without voter consent. The lawsuit claims that 90 million dollars budgeted for water and electric were used for other purposes, without a vote from Glendale residents, a direct violation of the California State Constitution. Monies were found to be used for the City’s budgetary shortfalls unbeknownst to the taxpayer, as a result of bad decision making, the City increased their water rates to the extent that they doubled within a two years period in order to compensate. Sounds vaguely familiar? It should folks. It Perry truly is looking out for the best interest of his constituents, and let’s take it a step further, for the all the constituents of the City of Riverside, something his opinionated supporters didn’t get, he should definitely study and investigate the financing practices as his background with the Sheriff’s department indicate.
On June 22, 2014 at the Mike Soubirous Hearing, the council voted at the end of the hearing “to vote, not to vote.” Perry was the lone wolf who voted “Nay.” We asked why? The obvious answer is that he voted to willingly break the “Brown Act” for the second time! Again, Why?
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
The fact that he voted in favor of the hearing initially in closed sessions violated the Brown Act as admitted by Councilman Paul Davis. By his lone vote he told the community he was in support of the Mike Soubirous hearing regardless of knowing that he would violate the Brown Act again. Again folks, a second time! Did he (Perry) really understand the motion? We think not. A Brown act violation is a misdemeanor and could get you a $1000 fine or six (6) months in jail, and if you wish to add up the counts, that’s another story. Earlier that evening Perry brought RPOA President Brian Smith back up to the podium to give his rendition of Perry Mason, but he was just Councilman Jim Perry.
It couldn’t be more obvious to the audience that he, Perry, was just pandering in support of RPOA’s President Brian Smith. Was Perry attempting to support and defend Smith’s line of allegations to help him make his case? Was Perry doing this in order to show his loyalty and public support of RPOA in order to receive financial support from RPOA for his recall campaign and become RPOA’s guy? Was this all orchestrated and designed between Perry and Smith?
Perry asked Smith, “If you were asked for your phone records would you have provided them?” Smith stated “it depended on what they wanted?” Again leaving the question of accountability and transparency by RPOA President Brian Smith. You can’t have it both ways! Then he brings in Press Enterprise’s reporter Alicia Robinson into the picture. If I were Alicia, I’d be pissed, and a little beyond that..
Perry also asked the question of what Smith meant by “Big League” him. Smith stated that “he was letting me know his position vs. my position, and that was how I felt.” Okay Smith, so what! These appears to mean nothing. Then Smith mentions “Spirited Conversation.” again so what?
In the recent past, Perry attempts to diffuse any effort to call upon the State Controller to audit, forensically, the sewer funds. While other council our giving their reasoning for this, especially in the financial journals, and finding contradiction in the CFO Brent Mason’s statements, why would he venture (Perry) not to investigate? If there was misappropriations of the taxpayers sewer funds why would he not be in support of this? Is he, Perry, answering to a higher source? Or has now become part of the “get along group?” The support of a forensic audit of the sewer funds would only be in the best interest of the taxpayer! After all, what hasn’t been expressed is that the residents are responsible for approximately $4 billion in unfinanced debt, serious enough to bankrupt the City of Riverside. Why wouldn’t Perry be concerned? It doesn’t stop there, Councilman Perry supported the red light cameras, while the majority gave supporting evidence it was really a scam on the resident of Riverside, and it was nothing more than another ploy or attempt to extort more revenue from the residents.
SHOULD WE AS A COMMUNITY BE CAREFUL THE NEXT TIME WE CHOOSE AND VOTE ANOTHER COUNCILPERSON TO OFFICE?
WHAT WAS MORE REVEALING WAS THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S DEBT SERVICE OVER THE NEXT 30 YEARS.. TO THE TUNE OF $2,063,073,983.00 WHICH IN LAYMAN’S TERMS IS $2 BILLION! What was also stated by Councilman Mike Gardner, is that we, the City of Riverside, has a “baloon” payment due in 2014! What does this mean? It means that we have to come up with with close to a $100 million, which according to Gardner, will have to be refinanced. With are downgrade in sewer bonds from a AAA rating to a A rating, this will definitely effect are ability as a city to refinance anything!
But as John Candy states its all about people! You need a college education to understand the numbers.. As in our case we spent five years to be educated by an Orange County CFO regarding municipal financing.
THE JULY 22, 2014 COUNCILMAN MIKE SOUBIROUS HEARING INVESTIGATING CHARTER VIOLATIONS AND A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT BY CITY MANAGER SCOTT BARBER AND CHIEF OF POLICE SERGIO DIAZ. (CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW ON YOUTUBE).
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND
MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU. RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”, WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT, WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! WE JUST CAN’T SPELL! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT: THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM