According to the San Bernardino Sentinel, Colton City Attorney Christina Talley has been relieved of her position as of September 18,2014, or could we say “fired?” Christina Talley works for the infamous Best, Best & Krieger, and incidentally has been hired by the City of Riverside through BB&K to be interim City Attorney, after former City Attorney Greg Priamos skipped town when he couldn’t handle the heat in the kitchen to Riverside County. Of course, the County Boys embraced Priamos with open arms. Accordingly, Ms. Talley appears to have been passed around to cities like a bad can of sardines beyond there expiration date. Cities continued to employ her, regardless of the smell she left behind. According to the article there is more to the story then meets the eye, not only was City of
Colon Colton concerned with her ineptness with Brown Act regulations, whereby she allowed non-agendized items to be discussed by council. But even more discerning, was what occurred at a June 3 Colton Council meeting , at which a decision was made to place City Manager Stephen Compton on administrated leave. This was as a result of Compton’s inquiry with reference to questionable financial practices, including “off-the-book” projects in public works department which led him very close to uncovering details of how certain projects were funded, including several unauthorized projects which were being run out of the public works department. This of course, brought scrutiny, according to the article, toward the actions of public works director Amer Jakher, who enjoyed a close relationship with a majority of the of the city council. As the focus pointed to Jakher, some council members were pushing Compton to examine the city’s contract with Best, Best & Krieger and Talley, and potentially put the contract for city legal services out to bid.
In July of 2014, a group of Colton residents filed a complaint with the city to investigate alleged irregularities in the city’s public works department alleging potential misappropriation of public funds, gift of public funds and misuse of public funds which benefitted two city council members. The citizens provided documentation indicating that the “off the books” activity, i.e., work that had not been considered or approved by the city council, had indeed taken place in the public works division. That request was moved forward by Police Chief Steve Ward, who was then acting in the capacity of city manager during Compton’s absence. Chief of Police/City Manager Ward initiated an investigation and personally forwarded the request to Talley. The investigation was handed over to another Best Best & Krieger attorney, Ronald Ball, who is “of counsel” with the firm. Several weeks later it was discovered that Talley, however, neglected to provide Ball with the background documentation that had been provided to the city by the group of residents requesting the investigation. Thus, the investigation failed to focus on the “off-the-books” activity in the public works department that was at the root of the concerns expressed by the citizens group, and the final report reflected an incorrect timeline of events which discredited its conclusion that two of the members of the council, Frank Gonzales and Susan Oliva, had not benefited from the misapplication of resources in the public works department. Manipulation of the facts? Read the whole story in the September 19th article in the San Bernardino Setinel.
Beginning in August 2014, according to the San Bernardino Sentinel, Talley became less and less visible in Colton. She was replaced in some venues by Marco Martinez, a partner with Best Best & Krieger. In fact, Talley’s mishandling of the Colton account appears to have impacted her standing with Best Best & Krieger, which now appears to be in danger of losing Colton as a client altogether. Talley, who formerly had an office in Best Best & Krieger’s Irvine office, where she was formerly listed as an “associate,” has been consistently unavailable at that location since August. She is no longer listed as an “associate,” but is now deemed to be “of counsel,” an indication Best Best & Krieger is seeking to disassociate itself from her.
But it doesn’t stop there, in the “Anaheim Blog”, Christina Talley who was Anaheim’s City Attorney since 2009 was asked to resign in January of 2013, with what appears to be her ineptness, again, with the Brown Act. The “Voice of Orange County” also brought forward another issue with Talley with reference to her alleged ineptness with the Brown Act.
But in my eyes what we see is a powerful law firm who has been allowed to be part of the very fabric which ultimately represents the interest of the taxpayers. It certainly appears that they are their to protect their taxpayer paycheck with bad legal advice.
As in the instance whereby the City of Bell sues former City Attorney Edward Lee, a BB&K attorney, for let’s see, “Faulty Legal Advice!” So Riverside, you know have a little information of how the City of Riverside rolls in what is in it’s best interest…it may very well not be you. What appears to be allegedly evident is that Best Best & Krieger has been manipulating California City politics through their “fly-by-night” team of legal attorneys, which seem to cause more financial liability to the taxpayer, then financial protection to the taxpayer.
Well I would expect that the City of Riverside’s spokes hole and former PE reporter, Phil Pritchard may attempt to spin the story by just saying she left Colton to work for the City of Riverside… Watch Two Timing Talley’s antics unfold at today’s City Council Meeting, and you the taxpayer decide! Is she really inept, or really good at playing the field of City Politics? Should we allow uncontracted legal work to continue with BB&K? Should we allow BB&K Trash Attorneys to represent the taxpayers? I think not.
CITY OF RIVERSIDE: COUNCILMAN MELENDREZ: HUMANITARIAN RESOLUTION TRIGGERS ETHICS COMPLAINT.
Councilman Andy Melendrez’s attempt to create the City of Riverside as a “Sanctuary City” appeared to be hidden according to many in the community and not brought forward at a Tuesday’s City Council Meeting. As a result, a formal Code of Ethics and Conduct complaint was filed by Fontana Council candidate Tressy Capps, specifically against Melendrez’s assertion that their would be no “fiscal impact” in the adoption of this resolution, as stated in the City Council Memorandum. The following is the filed complaint by Tressy Capps.
UPDATE: TRESS CAPPS IN THE NEWS: THE DAILY CALLER: WOMAN WHO REALLY HATES MEXICAN FLAG LOSE JOB OVER HATRED OF MEXICAN FLAG. The title says she hates the Mexican Flag, but the report list no direct statement by her with the words “hate” etc.
The following is the City Council Memorandum stating that there would be no “fiscal impact” with the adoption of this humanitarian resolution. The meaning of a resolution is defined as a firm decision to do something, or not to do something.
What was more discerning was this item/resolution it was placed on the Consent Calender, as some have indicated, a way to pass and sneak a real issue from the community. Rather than just passed, it was brought out from the consent calender for discussion. This play on politics does not make Andy a proponent for what’s right and wrong, as indicated by many in his ward. The resolution states the following: “WHEREIS: The City of Riverside hereby stands in support of sanctuary and humanitarian efforts or assistance in the processing and treatment of all immigrants, including those recently arriving in the United States..” According to the Press Enterprise, Melendrez stated that “the resolution would not have actually required the city to do anything, nor would it have committed any city funds.” Even our interim City Attorney Christina Talley chimed in when asked for an opinion by stating the following, “Based upon the face of the resolution, I didn’t see anything in that resolution that conflicted with federal or state law.” But when you look at the resolution statement it appears rather vaguely written, possibly not to directly take issue with the real point, “illegal” immigration. His point of stating “including those recently arriving in the United States,” would actually imply helping immigrants “illegally” in the country. It also seems that the City of Riverside supports efforts of efforts and assistance in the processing of all immigrants. According the statement, this would imply both “legal” and “illegal” immigrants. If this is true, the City of Riverside would effectively stating in this resolution that it supports breaking the law by supporting efforts to process “illegal” immigrants. This I would say is a direct conflict with Federal Law, and out of the scope of a local municipality, such as our City. Further, the definition of a “child” is someone under the age of 18 year of age, in some in some instances it may very well be under 19 years of age. The full original resolution is as follows:
Capps states that this resolution directly violates specifically page 4, item #6 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected Officials. She cited the item, “they will seek to insure that information provided by the city government to the public is accurate and clear.” Where is City Attorney Greg Priamos when we need him? Hell, he would just make matters worse.
According to some in the community, this resolution advocatess breaking Federal law.. Not only is he advocating breaking Federal Law, he is stating it would be acceptable for the City of Riverside to assume acceptance of those who have entered the country illegally. Some in the community feel this was done without consideration of those in his community who are legal, and need help, such as are veterans, homeless, residents struggling financially to make ends meet etc. On the other hand, proponents state that we need to ensure that the security, protection and needs of illegal or undocumented children are addressed on a humanitarian level. Which appears to be acceptable since immigration is a Federal issue. Though the term “children” has yet to be defined in these resolutions. Many city’s have adopted similar resolutions, even some states, there is really no conflict as such which would interfere with Federal laws. But what does this mean when a resolution such as this, is adopted at a local level?
Again, what happens if the whole investigation is dropped, who is responsible for the bill? You got it, we are! Should an incompetent City Manager Scott Barber reimburse the taxpayer for his inexperience? Then again attempting to sue the taxpayer as a direct result of his own personal conflicts?
UPDATE: CINDY ROTH AND THE GREATER RIVERSIDE CHAMBER RECEIVES FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, OVER A HALF A MILLION OVER THREE YEARS FOR “KEEP RIVERSIDE CLEAN AND BEAUTIFUL” PROGRAM, AS VOTED AT SEPTEMBER 23RD CITY COUNCIL, WITH THE ONLY NO VOTE BY COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS. Question have arose over the disbursements of taxpayer monies, which appear to have never been reported to Council in the past. Taxpayers continue to argue that it is a “money laundering” scheme. Incidently, Cindy Roth, CEO/President, her husband is now Senator for the State of California… In the past has done outside legal work for the City of Riverside, which has been allegedly been questionable with reference in how his work really benefited Riverside residents.
Cindy Roth and the Greater Riverside Chamber was also against Measure A, which was not in the best interest of the taxpayers, and evidently is why her behind the scenes political activities at City Hall have been seen as some, as a political powerhouse, which includes former CEO and Publisher of the Riverside Press Enterprise , Ron Redfern. Riverside, wouldn’t you think something is wrong in Denmark? At the cost of $574,754 over three years to the taxpayer in your Trash Bill? Now folks, this is a volunteer program… Technically according to City policy, since this money arrives from Public Works, this item must go out to bid, secondly, there must be a contractors contract initiated itemizing the cost of services provided. This was not done. Also, an expenditure report has never been given to the City to disclose a specific itemization of disbursements. So, where does the money go? With this in mind, questions arise to how the monies are actually spent. First of all, is there a specified account for this money? Or is this money just deposited in the Greater Riverside Chamber’s general fund? To possibly be used for Councilmember and Mayor special trips, campaigns etc.
CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
UPDATE: IS THE AMERICAN DISABILITIES GUIDELINES NOTHING MORE THAN A “SHAKE DOWN” SCHEME PERPETRATED BY THE CALIFORNIA TRIAL LAWYERS THROUGH LEGISLATION? NOW UNDER THE DECEPTIVE NAME OF CONSUMER ATTORNEY’S OF CALIFORNIA? NEW STORY IN THE PRESS ENTERPRISE..
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 BELIEVE THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN NOW, SINCE GREG SKIPPED TOWN TO THE COUNTY)… 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 TOXIC DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT: THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM