AS A SIDE NOTE, I’VE BEEN TOLD THAT CUSSING AND SPITTING WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, AND A HEAP OF BOOK LEARNING NOT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO TAKE ISSUE WITH THE COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 5, 2013 AT 1:00PM Since the council always agree on everything, I know they’ll agree with this one. Will council keep Councilmember Steve Adam’s mouth in check long enough as to not make a reckless statement which may be interpreted as fighting words by the other side.
UPDATE: 02.05.2013: POWER LINE PROJECT APPROVED 5:0 BY CITY COUNCIL. What next? The City of Jurupa Valley filing suit against the City of Riverside? An additional law suit against the City of Riverside for an alleged illegal tax, of which was charged to residents in what is known as the “reliability charge”. The reliability charge is $10.00 dollar monthly utility charge seen on residents bills, which was never voted on by the residents therefore possible legal ramifications in regards to violations in reference to Proposition’s 218 and 26. Lastly, a possible IRS audit as a result of alleged misuse of Federal Bonds? How much can the City of Rivereside’s legal fund take? Mayor Bailey thinks we are in good standing after told by CFO Brent Mason we have $400 million in reserves, but let’s not tell him there are rules and restriction to the use of these reserves which are actually investment funds.
My mom always said to me, “Don’t let anybody step in your face.”
The City of Riverside’s darling in lobbying, Cindy Roth, and her lobbying group, the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce, was out in force with this mailer sent to members.
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
At this point, the City of Riverside is still in need of a legitimate Chamber of Commerce that truly represents real business.
THE RELIABILITY CHARGE: A UTILITY ANOMALY?
Each month since 2008 the citizens of Riverside have been paying a $10.00 charge on their utilities bill that was originally intended for the construction and expansion of transmission lines. These lines would give the City of Riverside a back-up system in case a disaster occurred as we were told. But is this really a tax? This in turn would be a violation of Proposition 26.
The City of Jurupa states that the City of Riverside’s route encompasses prime land which in turn would destroy the value. The City of Jurupa Valley states that there are alternative routes available. The City of Riverside’s position is that the route is the only route available. TMC understands that the City of Riverside has spent a cost of over $20K for an EIR (Environmental Impact Report), which may be the reason for snubbing the City of Jurupa Valley. Bailey went to the City of Jurupa Valley for a meeting, but nothing appeared to come from it. The position of Riverside in reference to the transmission line route was maintained.
Again, most people thought the City of Riverside were neighbors with the City of Jurupa Valley, and that we were friends being neighboring cities, but is this going to turn out to be another Hatfield’s & McCoys?
According to the Press Enterprise, on Monday, Jan. 14, Jurupa Valley Chamber of Commerce President Dan Rodriguez met with Riverside Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey to discuss how the Interstate 15 route would impact commercial, industrial and residential development that would bring jobs, tax revenue and valuable services to Jurupa Valley. Chamber director Ron Anderson and Jurupa Valley council members Laura Roughton and Frank Johnston also attended the meeting. In a memo to Bailey, Rodriguez warned that “this project would eliminate approximately 806 homes in the city of Jurupa Valley, which will affect the local school district and eliminate future customers for businesses …” TMC was also told that the transmission route would cut through land considered prime realestate. Jurupa Valley Councilman Frank Johnston described the meeting as “disappointing, but not surprising.” This is reference to the collaboration with Riverside Mayor Rusty Bailey.
Did our fare leader, Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey leave a bad taste in the minds of the leadership of Jurupa Valley? Or could we assume that the tone and atmosphere was such that it reflected ‘fighting words’? With that in mind, are the two cities to embrace in another expensive legal battle? One that the City of Riverside may lose at another enormous cost to the taxpayer? That my friends is left to be seen…
As told by a former councilman, the way they understood it at the time the ‘reliability charge’ was to pay for transmission lines. The reliability charge was to pay for three specific things…but continued to state that it was not to pay for all of those three specific things, but it was to pay for a component of those specific things. Well are you confused already citizens of Riverside, well just ask our neighbors and any of the Councilpeople next door at the City of Jurupa Valley.
If the the City of Riverside’s reliability charge was originally for transmission lines as it was passed by City of Riverside Councilmembers, we should at this time have $150 million in the pot to pay for them cash! But, again we have a but! Even if we had the $150 million available to pay for these transmission lines cash, would it be a violation of Proposition 26, since it appears that the there is no true benefit to the citizens of Riverside? Again, the City Council at the time understood that the reliability charge was for new transmission lines, but currently Dave Wright states it was intended to be used for other purposes. Such as …
One was the debt on the riverside energy resource center, which is four 50 megawatt units near the waste water treatment plant that provide peaking generation, the debt on those 4 units is approximately $200 million.
Also, at that point in time when the reliability charge was put in place we had some low cost coal power contracts that expired and we weren’t legally able to replace them with power that cost as low as that coal, so we had doubling or tripling in the cost of replacement that power.
In addition the riverside transmission reliability project which was our cost of about $150 million, the entire project including all of Edison cost, our portion of that project was $150 million, also will have some debt associated with it. So the amount of the reliability charge revenue each year 20 to 25 million.
The debt on work and dprt on work is about $30 to $35 million and you add to that the cost of replacement energy that may be renewable or other sorts of energy. Another 10 to 15 million.
The annual cost are $50 million, and this is off the top of my head..so I have to go back and get….(we assume the figures).
The reliability charge will cover about half that. So that all was included when we looked at our rate projections, cause we project our cost 10 years. We project the rate increases 10 years. We look at what we can do and the rate freeze.
So folks it appears that the reliability charge that you pay each month is being used by the City of Riverside to pay for debt.
And yes, there will be cost of living type of increases that occur at the end of the rate freeze. There always going to be cost of living type living increases that are required in water, groceries, gasoline and anything else that you purchase. Mr. Wright went on to say that our rates our competitive, our rates are lower than the surrounding service providers, and they are projected to continue to be.
Was the original intention of the reliability charge presentation when brought to council chambers to decieve and misdirect the then council people on the dais? Is this charge to the Riverside residents not really a charge, but a tax? and a direct violation of Proposition 26? Should this issue originally been on the ballot for a vote by the Citizens of Riverside? If it wasn’t, should the Citizen’s of Riverside be entitled to a refund? This of course was not answered by Utilities Director Dave Wright, when the question was raised in public comment. Other questions being asked by Riverside residents are tiered pricing on water and electrical legal? Another good question for a Prop 218 Attorney to answer.
As one of the major property owners affected by the power lines I find Mr. Wright’s comments totally uninformed. Anyone who has dealt with an Edison easement knows they are prohibitively restrictive. SCE grants a license that is revocable and can be altered at any time SCE deems to their benefit. I wonder how many auto dealerships Mr. Wright has discussed my location with, to date he has never even bother to discuss this with me. To be sure this is a totally self serving and condenscending move by the City of Riverside it is obvious they could care less about Jurupa Valley and its residents. - Alan Sharp, Commenter on the PE
Deputy Superintendent of Schools Mike Fine goes over the 16 second mark at public comment and no arrest made. What does Mr. Fine have that Karen Wright doesn’t? Is is it something possibly called ‘access’.
New word of the week and how it was used, coming soon from the following ethics appeal hearing. No folks, it wasn’t “constipation” as someone indicated they thought Davis said. The word, “consternation”, amazement or dismay that hinders or throws into confusion. TMC thanks Councilman Paul Davis for the “big word” of the week.
ETHICS APPEAL: THE CHRIS MAC ARTHUR SLIGHT OF HAND, WAS IT QUITE DIFFERENT FROM HIS LEGISLATIVE AIDE’S SLIGHT OF HAND? WHAT KIND OF THING DID PITRUZZELLO HAVE FOR ADAMS WHEN SHE CALLED HIM “SWEETHEART”? WAS THIS A ELABORATELY STAGED DOG AND PONEY SHOW? NO ONE’S TALKING BUT QUITE A SHOW! THIS BEGINING ABOUT THE 8:00 MINUTE MARK ON THE VIDEO.
At the January 15, 2013 Ethics appeal against Chris Mac Arthur, the City Council founded their was no violation of the ethics code. The questions that arose was who is really in charge of Councilman Chris Mac Arthur’s legislative aide Chuck Conder? This now leads us to believe that the Ethic Panel was mislead and misinformed by City Attorney Greg Priamos and City Manager Scott Barber. In another bit of disturbing information, TMC has been told that legislative aide Chuck Conder and City Manager Scott Barber are good friends. We were told “they go way back.” So does Chris Mac Arthur maintain stability with Conder because he has the ‘in’ with Barber? Did this in any way implicate the ethics complaint against Mac Arthur? Or even Bailey? What about the relationship between Councilman Steve Adams and the City Attorney Greg Priamos and City Manager Scott Barber, who have been seen at various water holes having a libation or two, or so forth.. Regardless, why would City Manager Scott Barber see it fit to put the citizen’s and city employees of Riverside at risk? Regardless, it was all about the “bitch” word that was king at this showdown. What else can we say boys will be boys..
But the way City Manager Scott Barber and City Attorney Greg Priamos handled the direction of the December 13, 2012 Ethics Hearing was to misaguide the panel, and therefore their decision. On page 23 of the transcript, Barber states that “these complaints have been investigated and that he had taken whatever action was appropriate.” The part that got me was the “whatever action”, meaning there wasn’t really anything conclusive regarding Barber’ investigation. Then Barber refers to the California State Constitution with reference to privacy rights for public employees, stating that “those rights preclude me from discussing any confidential personnel matters.” One of the incidents referred to a “knife”. The action should have superseded this right and become a police matter, and that never happened. But as indicated Councilman Chris Mac Arthur brought these complaints to the City Manager for review and investigation. But Mr. Mac Arthur, as the employee contract indicates, has the power to teminate via his direction to the City Manager. Therefore, it is appearing that we do have another “dog and poney show” of the original hearing where the activities were orchestrated and designed to produce a favorable end result.
But we all new what would happen this January day, the 22nd and year 2013 when council again possibly misguided by the the City Attorney and City Manager, voted against the alleged accusations against Councilman Chris Mac Arthur.
At extreme difficulty to find out who is really in charge of legislative aid Chuck Conder, via questioning by Councilman Paul Davis and Councilman Andy Melendrez, the following was founded. The City Manager has ultimate ‘hiring’ and ‘firing’ authority, however, City Councilmember’s are in fact in charge of their legislative aide. This appeared to be an uncomfortable and tense situation for Barber, do to his body language and visual blood flushing to his head. Was he having difficulty telling the truth? Now, it appears to TMC that the adjudicating body, who was the Ethics Complaint Panel, was not fully clear about this due to the manipulation of information directly from City Attorney Primos and City Manager Barber, and allegedly was coached before hand as allegedly in the Rusty Bailey ethics complaint. If in fact these alleged incidents occurred, would this change the ultimate purpose of the ethics panels duties?
Chuck didn’t do anything but this is a political move to turn voters against Chris MacArthur. Look most of us know and have seen how it works. Chuck is just to nice and I can contest to pushing someone’s buttoms. The move is on to put a selected group in office and everyone will be used. Mark was used for votes as Bailey didn’t have a shot at getting elected. Mark’s Military service hit the hearts of voters and other tricks by Bailey were used. Mark is a close friend of Art and that put him out. All the fuss about this is just the beginning of what the future holds. We saw Riverside get National coverage as a citizen was handcuffed and removed because she spoke over 3 mins and the new Mayor had his City Attorney order the police to remove the citizen. We have seen many complaints of disrespect and even using kids for p…olitical gain by our new Mayor. Lessons not learned yet by voters is nothing good comes with corrupted elected officials. Lawsuits will continue and the blame will be place on others to protect the guilty. Loyality goes only so far as the bribes and criminal acts take front stage. Bell citizens set back until they stood up to their corrupt elected officials who are now on trial. Riverside has to eiither step up or wait for a Bell results. Citizens of Riverside now have been put on notice they can not speak to truth or ask serious questions. One lady learned that and has a criminal record and it doesn’t matter that the City Attorney broke the laws of a citizens Civil Rights and Constitutional Rights. Many remember the years when Mobesters rule and then convicted elected officals ruled but 2013 history repeats itself. Democracy is lost to this great city and we have to work together to get it back. – Jackie Rawlings, Commenter on the Press Enterprise
But it appeared to be an all out war against the contender Dvonne Pitruzzello by Counciman Steve Adams. Why’ll Adams asked Pitruzzello if she actually witnessed. At one point, Ms. Pitruzzello even addressed Adams as ‘sweetheart.’ But Adams contued to insist if Pitruzzello was witness to this knife wielding episode by Conder. Her attempt to state that she was witness to Conder using his finger in a vulgar way was squashed.
At the end of this ordeal, Councilman Adams walked by Pitruzzello from the dais while intentionally directing a dastardly smirk toward her. What was Adams trying to inadvertently tell Ms. Pitruzzello?
Was it to say something insidious about the confrontation, prompting a valid evaluation and questioning of the whole council ordeal? Dvonne Pitruzzello made it known that the ethics appeal process regarding Councilman Chris Mac Arthur was a “dog and pony show.” The heated exchange went something as this.
Adams: I have only one question for the appellant. Do you have any first hand knowledge of the incident?
Dvonne: Which one?
Adams: The one with which you are filing the complaint, and now the appeal?
Pritruzzello: I filed the complaint on three incidents.
Adams: Did you see the incident of which there was an accusation of something with the knife that was unfounded. Do you have first hand knowledge..
Pitruzzello: No, but I was flipped off at a city council meeting.
Adams: No, do you have first hand knowledge, let’s stick with one question at a time.
Pitruzzello: But that’s not what we are debating.
Adams: Yes it is..
Pitruzzello: No it’s not. We are debating if it should be appealed or not.
Adams: I’m trying to find out if you have first hand knowledge.
Pitruzzello: We are debating if it should be appealed or not.
Adams continued to badger Pitruzzello to answer a question unrelated to the actual appeal process. Down the road Councilman Adams stated:
Adams: If an event never happened, everything after that no longer exist. It doesn’t count. So my question is, do you have first hand knowledge were you there were you present, do you understand what you saw was to be true as to what was the accusation against Mr. Conder.
Pitruzzello: Sweetheart you are not listening.
Adams: No I’m listening..the answer is yes you saw or no you didn’t?
Did Councilman Adams really understand the appeal process at hand? It appeared he didn’t according to City Attorney and Pitruzzello, but maintained he did. But he continued to ‘bully’ his unrelated questioning toward Pitruzzello, when the legal issue was the ‘appeal process.’ It appeared when creviced into a corner whereby he could not rationally respond to the issue at hand, he abruptly motioned to dismiss the appeal. As Mayor Bailey mentioned in purpetouity at his State of the City speech, “the Riverside Way”? Again, Adams is one who has been seen at local watering holes with Priamos and Barber. Barber, of course, good friends and buddies with Conder. Can we consider some incestious favoritism and to the extent of cronyism in this situation? We have yet to revisit Bailey’s ethics complaint that was brought by Self Appointed Citizen Auditor Vivian Moreno.
Incidently, Mayor Bailey’s legislative aide Mark Earley, who was incidently ‘let go’, and Councilman’s Mac Arthur’s legislative aide Chuck Conder did not appear at the Council hearing. Regardless, an OSHA investigation of the knife wielding incident is still ongoing.
What TMC believes to be true was that the adjudicating body was deceived and manipulated in their decision by City Attorney Greg Priamos and City Mananger Scott Barber. Intentionally? The question is what is the true purpose of the ethics panel when they are not allowed to actually have direct witnesses?
Self Appointed Citizen Auditor went on to say the following about the complaint at public comment:
Chuck Conder called Raychele Sterling and myself Stupid Bitches. He flipped Dvonne off when you were sitting here. For you Chris Mac Arthure to condone this behavior from your personal employee of yours is a reflection of who you are. WEAK, IGNORANT, or Just plain STUPID. The Lying, the cheating and the stealing that goes on here at City hall on a regular basis is criminal.
Every single one of you know that all these situation occured. Every single one of you knows Scott Barber Riverside City Manager, lied to OSHA. over this situation. He should be fired for putting the Staff, Public and Council in harms way.
A question. Why would your City Manager Scott Barber feel the need to lie to OSHA? If there is any work place violence that happens at City Hall you the council sitting here are to blame because you know of the situation. Maybe its because CHUCKIE and BARBER go way back and Scott Barber will support his buddies no matter what they do.
This is merely an excercise in Paper Trailing so when some one comes here AGAIN and we have a political occurance of Gun Violence We know whom will be to blame All of you.
You guys know what you do, and you all know what goes on at City Hall We know what your doing. And now Chuckie wants to be a councilman! Scott Barber you deserve him!
All of you here today are representive of Chuck Condor. This is what happened: Chuck Conder pulled a knife on Colonel Mark Early and you Fired Mark Early. Chuck Conder called Raychele Sterling and myself Stupid Bitches and we notified Chris Mac Arthur imediately. Chuck Conder flipped Dvonne Pitruzello off right here in Council Chambers and you did nothing.
So now you can do what Council things you do. And you try to let this just die but it’s not.. and this is just another example of who you all are. WEAK, IGNORANT and Just Plain STUPID.
“Dog and pony show” is a colloquial term which has come to mean a highly promoted, often over-staged performance, presentation, or event designed to sway or convince opinion for political, or less often, commercial ends. Typically, the term is used in a pejorative sense to connote disdain, jocular lack of appreciation, or distrust of the message being presented or the efforts undertaken to present it.
THE LIE HAS BEEN EXPOSED AND THE ADJUDICATING BODY MISINFORMED? SO NOW WHAT? WILL THE COUNCIL NOW HAVE THE GUMPTION TO TAKE ACTION?
Rumor is that the some of the panel was made by the very same people that heard the Bailey ethics complaint, this was because some of the original panel members refused, because they did not want to be a part of this decision making pane hearing a complaint against Councilman Chris Mac Arthur. Barber continues to lie and supterfuge the councilmembers on the dais. Councilmember Davis continually had to repeat the question as to whom is really responsible for their legislative assistant. The question as to who is directly responsible for the behavior of their legislative assistants is the councilmember. The councilmember also has the termination authority via their direction to the City Manager.
At the beginning of the hearing Mayor Bailey made it be known that no new evidence would be considered, and if it was could not be considered. Councilmember Adams asked the question twice thereafter during the proceeding if any new evidence came in. He was corrected by Priamos twice as there wasn’t.
What appears to be true and apparent was that Mr. Barber and Mr. Priamos led the adjudicating body to believe that Mr. Barber was directly responsible for the behavior of the legislative assistant. Further, Mr. Mac Arthur is directly responsible for the behavior of his legislative assistant and he has the ability to fire or terminate his legislative assistant at anytime, under his direction to the City Manager. This, all per City of Riverside’s employment contract.
NEW FORMAT FOR THE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT: BETTER? OR LESS TRANSPARENT?
Has the new monthly report format been changed to give the illusion of financial stability for the City of Riverside? In the new report we have sections which appear not to be ‘actual’ but a ‘forecast’, such as the general fund budget forecast, general fund revenue forecast and general fund expenditure forecast.
CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE
CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE
Old version as indicated above, one could simply see what’s in the general fund for that particular month, as opposed to the new formatted version. New formatted monthly investment report removes the “Pooled Cash and Investment By Fund” section and replaced with “Forcast” reports. Such as General Fund Budget Forcast Report, General Fund Revenue Forecast Report and General Fund Expediture Forcast Report. The third pic shows Mayor’s Bailey office was overbudgeted by over $100,000.00, was this to pay for the new teleprompter that he used at the State of the City address? Well anyway, the new format was signed off by Chief Financial Officer Brent Mason.
Brent Mason, CFO Sorry… Brent Mason, CFO
CDBG MONIES USED FOR INCUBATOR COMPANIES, ONE OF WHICH WENT DEBUNK.. Giving Federal CDBG monies to incubator companies, is that legal? Even though many at public comment asked that it be removed from the consent calender for more discussion, City Council unanimously voted on it. Even Councilman Paul Davis and Councilman Andy Melendrez who appeared most concerned about and questioned the funds use voted on it. This was item #16 on the Consent Calender for January 22, 2013. CDBG funding requires citizen participation, nowhere found on the document. So, what our CDBG funds and what should they actually be allocated for? Well, let’s start with the following.
Community Development Block Grant Program – CDBG: The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is a flexible program that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs. Beginning in 1974, the CDBG program is one of the longest continuously run programs at HUD. The CDBG program provides annual grants on a formula basis to 1209 general units of local government and States.
About the Program: The CDBG program works to ensure decent affordable housing, to provide services to the most vulnerable in our communities, and to create jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses. CDBG is an important tool for helping local governments tackle serious challenges facing their communities. The CDBG program has made a difference in the lives of millions of people and their communities across the Nation.
Citizen Participation: A grantee must develop and follow a detailed plan that provides for and encourages citizen participation. This integral process emphasizes participation by persons of low or moderate income, particularly residents of predominantly low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, slum or blighted areas, and areas in which the grantee proposes to use CDBG funds. The plan must provide citizens with the following: reasonable and timely access to local meetings; an opportunity to review proposed activities and program performance; provide for timely written answers to written complaints and grievances; and identify how the needs of non-English speaking residents will be met in the case of public hearings where a significant number of non-English speaking residents can be reasonably expected to participate.
So what happened to IE Connect? How did it morph to IE Initiative? More to come..
WATER LAWSUIT FILED LAST YEAR COMES TO HEAD WITH A CITY OF RIVERSIDE RESPONSE. This was the original law suit filed by Riverside Residents Dr. Javier and Vivian Moreno against the City of Riverside.
The following is the City of Riverside’s filed response to their suit.
UPDATE: 02.05.2013: EVEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GETS PROP 218, WHY DOESN’T THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE? According to an article in the PE by Cassie Macduff, Proposition 218 prohibits siphoning money from restricted funds like the water fund for general-fund expenses.
WILL COUCNILMAN PAUL DAVIS BE TREADING UNCERTAIN WATERS IF LEGISLATIVE AIDE CHUCK CONDER ENTERS THE PICTURE IN THIS JUNE’S ELECTION?
WITH INCREASING AMOUNT OF POTHOLES BECOMING PREVALENT IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, WILL IT BE NECESSARY FOR CITIZENS TO DO IT THEMSELVES? Well, this is what San Diego Hillcrest resident Primo Vanicelli decided to do back in 2010 as reported by the SanDiego.Com
LET’S NOT MENTION THE CITY TREES THAT TAXPAYERS HAVE PAID INTO AND ARE NOT MAINTAINED. LAST YEAR RESIDENTS SAW THIS IN WARD 1 AS A RESULT OF UNMAINTAINED CITY TREES. OF COURSE THE CITY IS QUICK TO TERRORIZE THE CITIZENS BY CITATIONS AGAINST WOOD STREET RESIDENTS. WELL COUNCILMAN GARDNER ISN’T THIS YOUR BLOCK? WHAT ABOUT ALL THE UNCUT TREES AND EXORBITANT AMOUNTS OF FALLEN PALM FRAWNS, THAT INCIDENTLY, MOST RESIDENTS TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES. STREET SWEEPER’S DON’T, RESIDENTS DO, AND THE DON’T APPRECIATE THE TICKETS THAT CODE GIVES TO THESE RESIDENTS WHEN THEY FORGET TO MOVE THEIR VEHICLES. WHAT’S MORE EMBARASSING IS WHEN THEY HAVE FRIENDS, RELATIVES, LANDSCAPING OR REPAIR PEOPLE OVER WHICH RECIEVE CITY TICKETS. WHAT NOW COUNCILMAN MIKE GARDNER? IS IT WORTH THE EXTRA $40 BUCKS TO LOSE THE SUPPORT OF A CONSTITUENT?
A LETTER TO THE TRUTH PUBLICATION ONLINE: ” GOD FORBID IF THIS 7 YEAR OLD GIRL HAD BEEN MAYOR BAILEY’S DAUGHTER…” A letter to the editor of the Truth Publication Online regarding his opinion on two sets of rules and the devaluation of life by the City of Riverside sent by Donald Gallegos. His opinion letter is as follows:
“Recent actions taken by Riverside authorities confirm my suspicion that there are two set of rules by which Riverside residents should be expected to live by, or face the repercussions by local authorities via the Riverside Police Department, the District Attorney’s office, and City Hall Officials. “The de-valuation of a Riverside citizens life and of their pets. “An RPD officer can go into your backyard while you are not home and shoot your dog dead under the premise that the officer was in the act of performing their duties and was allegedly in fear for their own life after the officer had put themselves in that position. “Can not Riverside residents keep a guard dog in their gated yard to protect their home without the risk of coming home and being told that their beloved pet has been shot to death by the RPD ?
“The fact that Riverside police chief Sergio Diaz says that there is nothing wrong with the RPD current policies and procedures regarding the tragic death of a Casa Blanca resident is irresponsible, and further endangers the lives of both Riverside police officers and residents. Imagine Jerry Carroll saying this comment after four white officers had shot 19 year old black teenager Tyisha Miller in
“I do not blame the officer in the Casa Blanca incident, I blame the policy and procedure of allowing officers to drive while using a computer. Many police agencies do not allow this for obvious reasons.
“The recent tragedy of a Riverside traffic employee running down and killing both an adult and a child while they were innocently waiting at a bus stop. “The Riverside police department allowed this man to go home after questioning him. The man was obviously distracted, daydreaming, or asleep, and speed was a factor when you consider the damages. “I have since found out that the 7 year old child was black, and that the driver was a Riverside employee. “Did the Press Enterprise print a photo of these two victims ? If not.. why not ?
“I would bet my life on this… God forbid if this 7 year old girl had been Mayor Bailey’s daughter, the man would not have been free to walk away after running them down regardless of the reasoning behind it. Someone would have hell to pay for this I can tell you that much. The man would have been arrested and charged with a minimum manslaughter charge if not more.
“Two different rules to live by and the de-valuation of the life of a Riverside resident when it involves Riverside authorities and their employees.
“Donald H. C. Gallegos.”
UPDATE:02.03.2013: FOR WHATEVER REASON IT APPEARS THAT THE ORIGINAL LETTER HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE TRUTH PUBLICATION ONLINE SITE.
Photos Courtesy of the Press Enterprise
A ON THE STREET PERSPECTIVE OF THE POSSIBLE CRASH ROUTE (CLICK ON ABOVE IMAGES TO ENLARGE.)
Joe D. Williams, a Parking Control Representative for the City of Riverside was named as the driver in the fatal bus stop crash. As of December 28, 2012, the date of the incident no reported indication of a drug test or alcohol sobriety test being taken. Incidently, Williams was also not arrested, RPD Officer Bryan Galbreath said intent and negligence did not appear to be factors in the fatal accident, though police have yet to indicate why Williams vehicle left or veered off the road. Information continues to be sketchy and vague from police and the city. If anyone has ever received a ticket close to City Hall, you may have been a William’s victim, it’s alleged that he has been noticed by some Riversidian’s to be hiding behind the bushes awaiting a ticketing opportunity. A witness, Patty Roach, told The Press-Enterprise in an email that the driver had been sitting at a red light on Magnolia at Tyler Street just before the crash and did not proceed on the green light until other motorists honked their horns at him. What appears to be a brand new KIA sedan veered across two lanes. A double standard of how members of our city are treated, as opposed to the common taxpayer and residents? Currently, some have said he was allegedly texting. Chief Sergio Diaz, again supports the activity of his officers driving while on a lap top, while the rest of us may have to deal with being ticketed or arrested if in a fatal accident, what some are saying is a “double standard of hypocrisy.” Victims in these cases have been Black and Hispanic.
UPDATE: 02.03.2013: ACCORDING TO THE PRESS ENTERPRISE PARKING CONTROL REPRESENTATIVE JOE WILLIAMS WOULD BLACK OUT AT WORK! If Mr. Williams has had a history of black outs with reference to a seizure condition, why would he be driving? Why wouldn’t those close to him family, friends, employees and employer allow him to drive a vehicle, knowing his condition of periodically experiencing black outs? When on the job does he, as an employee, drive a city vehicle or a operates a segway? He has been prescribed seizure medication, and many times these medications will indicate not to drive or operate heavy machinery. Does he take his medication daily as indicated? Did his physcian counsel him that he shouldn’t drive? Did he knowingly not tell DMV of his condition? Would the two victims be alive today if someone had done the right thing? The below reports documentation to two incidents which occurred why in the employment of the City of Riverside.
TMC GOES GLOBAL: MONTH OF JANUARY 2013 THE FOLLOWING COUNTRIES HAVE VISITED: Canada, India, United Kingdom, Australia, Vietnam, Phillipines, Poland, Côte d’Ivoire, Indonisia, United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Thailand, Ghana, France, Egypt, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Argentina, South Africa, Brazil, Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Ukraine, Jordan, Maldives, Israel, Turkey, Oman, Singapore, Greece, Hong Kong, Benin, Peru, Taiwan, Mexico, Kuwait, St. Lucia, New Zealand, Netherlands, Switzerland, Venezuela, Russian Federation, Uganda, Croatia, Austria, Ireland, Belarus, Malaysia, Romania, Czech Republic and Japan.
RIVERSIDE’S OWN FIVE BEFORE MIDNIGHT BLOGGER MARY SHELTON BREAKS HER SHOULDER IN A FALL ON A CITY CURVE. Her surgery on Tuesday the 29th exposed what was seen as a shoulder bone which was badly crushed to the point of no repair. Her shoulder bone was rebuilt with the use of a prosthetic titanium insertion which will replace the bone lost as seen in the x-ray.
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
Mary thanks all of those who emailed her with good wishes and of their concerns for a speedy recovery which includes Councilmembers Steve Adams, Paul Davis, Mike Gardner; Director of Public Works Tom Boyd and City Manager Scott Barber. Shelton is to be awarded the 2013 Bill Howe Award for Police Accountability by the Riverside Coalition for Police Accountability on Monday 11th at the Community Settlement Association, 4366 Bermuda Avenue, Riverside, CA , 92507, 6:30pm-8:00pm. RPD Lt. Valmont Graham will also be awarded the 2013 Bill Howe Award for Police Accountability. Free and Open the Public.
AGAIN, FOR YOUR SAFETY, IF IN RIVERSIDE PLEASE WATCH OUT FOR CITY OFFICIALS IN WEAVING CARS! WE ARE TOLD THERE MAY STILL BE TWO SETS OF STANDARDS! BUT OF COURSE THAT IS A QUESTION FOR THE EXPERT ON SURFING ON A LAPTAP WHILE DRIVING,
COMPUTER WHIZ CHIEF
NACHO CHEESE SERGIO DIAZ, WHO MAINTAINS IT CAN STILL BE DONE, IF YOU’RE A POLICE OFFICER.
UPDATE: 02.05.2013: THE THIRD ANNUAL RUSS LEACH SUPERBOWL MEMORIAL WEEKEND EXTRAVAGANZA CLAIMS ANOTHER. RPD LT. LARRY GONZALEZ ARRESTED ON SUSPICION OF DUI AFTER RUNNING INTO A MAILBOX AND A RETAINING WALL IN AN UNMARKED CITY VEHICLE AROUND 2:00 AM IN THE MORNING. All were at at retirement party for the retiring Lt. Chris Manning. It was also indicated that the Police Chief Sergio Diaz was attendance among a who’s who of others. Mayor Rusty Bailey who left the pow pow at around 9:00pm, stated that “He (Lt. Larry Gonzalez) was sober when he left”, according the PE. That folks was from the mouth of independent voice himself. But others at the party indicate a different story regarding Gonzalez’s alleged sobriety, and why didn’t others there step up to the plate to give the Lt. a ride home? Lt. Gonazales was not sober from those in attendance unlike the Mayor Bailey’s statement to the press. Not a good start for Mayor’s Bailey first months in office whereby his statements have more contradiction than truth. What about the other’s who made it home that very night without incident of hitting a block wall or even a pedestrian? What will the outcome be? Will Lt. Gonzalez DUI have a favorable outcome in the court system, or is this truly a visual formality? Will Lt. Gonzalez be made to be an example, regardless of the other officers before him who didn’t make the press?
In a new article in the PE, it states that in recent decades, police as well as the general public have come under increasing scrutiny. Once upon a time, cops often got a pass when they were caught drinking and driving. A recent Riverside police chief learned that those days are over. Other activities of policy abuse was the use of cold plates for city vehicles issued to Councilmembers. The DMV is clear that these types of vehicles are to be used in criminal investigations and supervisin parolees, though at one time, four councilmembers were issued these vehicles including our Mayor Bailey.
IS THE CITY THAT BROKE, WHY IS THE CITY TICKETING VEHICLES IN THIS PRIVATE MALL? PIC SUBMITTED TO TMC OF A CITY EMPLOYEE TICKETING THE BLACK VEHICLE NEXT TO IT IN THE RALPH’S SHOPPING CENTER ON MAGNOLIA AND JURUPA.
THE BACKSTRAND BUILDING, MARCH 27, 1940, ON SIXTH AND MAIN
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 ACLU. RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… 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! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM